Moderators and "Bring it to feedback"

corkstudent

Why do moderators keep saying this; when they know ban complaints on this forum goes nowhere? It's arrogant beyond belief, like some melodramatic overpowered supervillain asking someone to take their best shot. Almost all the banned threads end up locked and with no satisfactory resolution. It's extremely rare that a moderator reverses their decision.

I do not understand. Why bother with the pretense that moderators will actually listen to other people that aren't moderators?

There are rules(Logic) that are simply inherent to debate and discussion that have existed hypothetically since the dawn of time... and they state it's pretty bad form to appeal to force, tradition, or use circular reasoning, yet I see mods and members defending mods doing this the whole time.

I am just tired of this. This isn't about any specific forum I or anyone else have been banned from. It's about the principles involved. Putting yourself beyond reason is a bad idea, yet it is my experience that the majority of moderators here do just that.

Boards.ie could be a good forum, but as it . That's grand if you're the average joe and lucky enough not to get bumped off for bizarre things like Thanking "abusive" posts, and not someone outspoken like me.

When I used to run forums, it was just a nice little feeling when I didn't resort to "do not challenge me in public. I am mother ****ing God", and instead heard people out, even in public. Debate, even when it gets aggressive and calling people ****heads is infinitely more preferable to the silencing of a debate prematurely. It is good to discuss things out, it is good to question those around you if you think they are in the wrong. It is practically boards policy that logic and thinking for yourself is bad, which is nuts.

I do not know why boards mods would at least try the alternative. I am tired of Judge Dredd wannabes as I've said elsewhere. Everything could be done friendlier and happier at the end of the day, or at least better, if mods actually heard people out instead of being so downright cocky.

Either way, nothing's changed since my last thread, the moderation system needs to be revamped. Amazingly not every forum on the internet even touches being as authoritarian as this one. I just wish some of the boards mods would stop putting themselves beyond reason - this only results in trouble anyway.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Ah...corkstudent, how I missed you and your rants.

Nevyn

Feedback is for feedback.
The Help desk forum is to have an issue escalted and evaulted by the smods and site admins.
Such issues include appealing bans, mod actions, mod behaviour ect.
If people started the threads in the right place with a clear goal then really things would
be dealt with a lot easier.

corkstudent

Thaedydal wrote: »

Feedback is for feedback.
The Help desk forum is to have an issue escalted and evaulted by the smods and site admins.
Such issues include appealing bans, mod actions, mod behaviour ect.
If people started the threads in the right place with a clear goal then really things would
be dealt with a lot easier.

Then why do mods tell people to "Bring it to feedback" exactly?

Help Desk is just as bad. You don't have the spamming of cat pictures, but that's about it. The majority of threads there do not really end all that well either.

I still don't get why it's okay for the moderators on this forum to act like borderline sociopaths.

Mods shouldn't post ballsy comments in the forum if they don't want ballsy comments back. It's just unfair, they should be settings an example.

nesf

I warned you not to call people who subscribe to other worldviews and philosophies that yours dumb ****s. I didn't ban you, I just warned you. You argued about the decision, that isn't allowed in Politics, so I warned you not to continue doing it and take it to Feedback. You posted again arguing about the decisions. I banned you for ignoring my warning. Then after you PM'd me to argue about it I directed you here again to make your complaint.


The admins/smods will look at this and if they feel you are correct will overrule my decisions. Or my co-mods might decide the decisions were incorrect and do the same as a group. That is why you were directed to make your complaint here, if your complaint is justified and reasonable it will be upheld. I obviously don't think it is or I wouldn't be telling you to take it here but it's fairly obvious what my stance on this is.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Feedback is for feedback.

In fairness to him I did tell him to post here about it. My mistake rather than his.

Nevyn

corkstudent wrote: »

Then why do mods tell people to "Bring it to feedback" exactly?

For the most part I would say helpdesk or rather then feedback as helpdesk
is more restricted and moderated.

corkstudent wrote: »

Help Desk is just as bad. You don't have the spamming of cat pictures, but that's about it.

Threads on helpdesk do not get bandwagoned and derailed which is a good thing.

As for why I would when dealing with an irrate poster suggest that they start a thread in helpdesk or feedback, it would be due to the fact that I am done dicussing the issue with them via pm and would prefer for the discussion to be more open public and to have input from others.

I don't want to be spending vast ammount of my time arguing back and forth via pm and it's too easy to get personal that way.

corkstudent wrote: »

I still don't get why it's okay for the moderators on this forum to act like borderline sociopaths.

What can I say you don't have to be crazy to be a moderator here but sometimes it helps.

GuanYin

corkstudent wrote: »

Then why do mods tell people to "Bring it to feedback" exactly?

Help Desk is just as bad. You don't have the spamming of cat pictures, but that's about it. The majority of threads there do not really end all that well either.

I still don't get why it's okay for the moderators on this forum to act like borderline sociopaths.

Mods shouldn't post ballsy comments in the forum if they don't want ballsy comments back. It's just unfair, they should be settings an example.

It really should be helpdesk. I think at this stage "take it to feedback" is almost colloquial. The policy on complaints was changed so that moderation/forum "complaints" were re-directed from feedback to helpdesk.

However, as helpdesk has less street theater than feedback, depending on whether people have a genuine issue they'd like resolved by a higher power, or whether they just want a rant with some like minded pitchfork wielding types, people will choose one or the other as a matter of preference rather than function.

To address your topic, you were told to take it to feedback because in the forum you were posting (Politics) the rules state that you don't argue with modding in the threads. This is to keep the threads running smoothly (or at least as smoothly as Politics allows).

In fairness, you were given warning not to do something and told to take it here, so you wouldn't go further and say or do something that would get you banned, which is what happened

In retrospect, you should have been directed to helpdesk..

Nevyn

GuanYin wrote: »

In retrospect, you should have been directed to helpdesk..

nesf wrote: »

In fairness to him I did tell him to post here about it. My mistake rather than his.

Oh dear, bad nesf, no cookie.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

Thaedydal wrote: »

Oh dear, bad nesf, no cookie.

To be perfectly fair to nesf, in the post of mine you quoted, I'd originally posted feedback instead of helpdesk, even though I clearly meant helpdesk as it was the thrust of my point!

Sometimes it takes a while to retrain the mind

corkstudent

nesf wrote: »

I warned you not to call people who subscribe to other worldviews and philosophies that yours dumb ****s. I didn't ban you, I just warned you.

This warning was based on incorrect reasoning. I explained this, rather respectfully, then your comment in reply was pure arrogance.

Arguing with me about moderating decisions will just end up with you getting banned.

Come on, seriously. This is just pure pompousness and arrogance. Waving your banhammer around like a big penis. I guess not everyone can see the problem with these comments, but pushing towards force instead of actually acting like a moderator is inexcusable.

This thread will not be derailed further by your inability to see why dumb ****s is less acceptable than lazy generalisations about socialists.

And this is actually incorrect - the language used is irrelevant compared to generalisations, which are logically fallacious, as is using the language someone uses against your argument.

This is my point - it is a moderator decision based on invalid logic, which is why I protested it. It's not even something complicated.

You argued about the decision, that isn't allowed in Politics, so I warned you not to continue doing it and take it to Feedback. You posted again arguing about the decisions. I banned you for ignoring my warning. Then after you PM'd me to argue about it I directed you here again to make your complaint.

Which isn't even the right forum for this sort of thing, as someone pointed out.

If you're a competent moderator, why did you direct me to the wrong forum? Oh snap.

The admins/smods will look at this and if they feel you are correct will overrule my decisions.

They won't. The admins/smods work on the same lack of logic you do, I've dealth with them before, this this thread. I already explained my reasoning for making that post. As usual with a boards mod, you sound like a broken record since you are beyond incapable of making a rational defense.

Again, you know that feedback threads never go well. You knowingly directed me here. The word "arrogance" exists for a reason, and you're the second mod that I have personally have this said to me by.

Also it's STILL hypocrisy to tell me not to derail threads when you are actively doing the same yourself. Your moderator posts could have been made via PM. Making them in public, then refusing a public refute, is unbelievably arrogant, yet it is common practice for mods here. Definitions don't shift around just because a pompous moderator wants them to.

I'm just sick of this "I am beyond reason" attitude. I would have an immense amount of respect for any moderator who reads this thread and says "Man this sucks, I'm going to do things a bit fairer."

corkstudent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, they don't. Point me to a logical fallacy that governs civility. Plus, if you're up for civility, why the patronising tone towards those that disagree with you to begin with?

And if there IS one, then please explain why it contradicts this:

Style over substance is a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. In some cases, the fallacy is employed as a form of ad hominem attack.

Here are some examples of the fallacy and how it is used.

Example One

* Person 1: Who needs a smoke detector? No one ever has a fire in their house, smoke detectors are a waste of money!
* Person 2: What?! You'd rather save a bit of money than ensure your family's safety? Don't you care whether they burn to death, you idiot?
* Person 1: I don't have to take your insults! Go away!

The fact that Person 2 insulted Person 1 does not alter the validity of Person 2's argument, nor does it excuse the hasty generalisation fallacy that Person 1 has employed.

I'm all ears, Ayn Rand.

You're right, it would have been nicer if I worded it better, but it wasn't a necessity. In many cases of boards mods acting up, there is something a bit off to begin with, but it still doesn't excuse the subsequent chain of actions.

Nevyn

All forums will say do not argue with mods re mod action in thread, if a poster then tires to it can result in a ban.
It is fairly standard, you have ran this gauntlet before, you should know by know to argue
if you want in feedback and serious issues in helpdesk.
It's not rocket science.

corkstudent

GuanYin wrote: »

To address your topic, you were told to take it to feedback because in the forum you were posting (Politics) the rules state that you don't argue with modding in the threads. This is to keep the threads running smoothly (or at least as smoothly as Politics allows).

I do not have a problem with this ideology if it is done via PM. However, it was not. A mod got to make public comments that were irrefutable. Not just about moderation - but relevant to the idea of style over substance.

Therefore, they were abusing their moderation power to get a leg up in an argument.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with boards.ie policies. Moderators have an allergy to taking anything up via PM. No moderator I've ever contacted has been responsive via PM.

In fairness, you were given warning not to do something and told to take it here, so you wouldn't go further and say or do something that would get you banned, which is what happened

In fairness, I was fully aware I would be banned, however, as I was pointing out, I would not have made that post if nesf could have been at least marginally respectful.

Nevyn

GuanYin wrote: »

To be perfectly fair to nesf, in the post of mine you quoted, I'd originally posted feedback instead of helpdesk, even though I clearly meant helpdesk as it was the thrust of my point!

Sometimes it takes a while to retrain the mind

Ok then no cookie for you either I will keep them all for myself.

GuanYin

Well we're all certainly sorry for the tragic loss of life and the knock on effect that the loss of life has had on families and the nation. Our thoughts are with those impacted.

Oh hold on..... you mean noone died.... but his post!!!...

*confuzzle*

corkstudent

Thaedydal wrote: »

All forums will say do not argue with mods re mod action in thread, if a poster then tires to it can result in a ban.
It is fairly standard, you have ran this gauntlet before, you should know by know to argue
if you want in feedback and serious issues in helpdesk.
It's not rocket science.

But I'm saying that's wrong and you should be massively ashamed for supporting it.

It would indeed be better for there to be no such off topic discussion in the thread. However, moderators should NOT be allowed to drop comments in threads that are irrefutable. They should make such comments via PM where they do not stick out in the thread.

I'm unsure I've ever seen a boards mod consider there might be a better way of doing things. Honestly, you only seem to ever to deal with things relevant to Da Rules, without even considering that they could be improved, or acted upon more fairly. I for one do not give a **** what your rules are, as I think they need to be changed. And honestly, the main change I'm talking about here(mod action via PM) is relatively simple, and definitely fair.

I will simple always contest mod decision if it posted publically. I couldn't change that aspect even if I tried, and I don't think I'd want to. Either way, it seems unfair as it is a form of baiting/trolling towards people who have had bad experiences with moderators. Mods always seem very pleased with the way feedback threads go.

corkstudent

GuanYin wrote: »

Well we're all certainly sorry for the tragic loss of life and the knock on effect that the loss of life has had on families and the nation. Our thoughts are with those impacted.

Oh hold on..... you mean noone died.... but his post!!!...

*confuzzle*

Appeal to ridicule is also logically fallacious reasoning; and immature at that.

Does boards even have any competent mods

GuanYin

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ok then no cookie for you either I will keep them all for myself.

mehm, I'm on a diet

Doctor DooM

corkstudent wrote: »

This is one of the biggest problems I have with boards.ie policies. Moderators have an allergy to taking anything up via PM. No moderator I've ever contacted has been responsive via PM.

I seem to recall you can be quite abusive via PM. Might have something to do with it.

sceptre

I'm moving this to the Help Desk.

GuanYin

corkstudent wrote: »

Appeal to ridicule is also logically fallacious reasoning; and immature at that.

Does boards even have any competent mods

Ok, I'll be straighter. You were directed to the wrong forum. On the internet.

Even then the forum you were directed to has a big sign at the top clarifying for you.

But really... I mean, come on.

Get over it.

corkstudent

SDooM wrote: »

I seem to recall you can be quite abusive via PM. Might have something to do with it.

So that means it's okay to shift your weight around in a thread where it could be better done by PM? Are you afraid I'll bite or something? Come on. Either way the comment gets made, the difference is whether it's in public or appropriately via PM, only infractions get issued via PM. I can still make the "abusive" message regardless, only if it's on the forum I'm much more likely to make it in public.

"abusive" depends on your definition, but it's certainly a lot better to deal with someone who's calling you an idiot than someone who is being completely unresponsive, as you know, you and ever other moderator is like.

Arguing with me about moderating decisions will just end up with you getting banned. This thread will not be derailed further by your inability to see why dumb ****s is less acceptable than lazy generalisations about socialists.

These kind of comments just aren't acceptable. In-your-face moderation is just cocky and unnecessary. I do not see why moderators cannot be more respectful with their attitudes, if I am meant to be too.

Moderators should be able to mediate and talk things to a decent resolution. I have yet to encounter a board mod that doesn't take the route of appealing to force at first issue.

GuanYin

To be fair, directing such disputes to helpdesk or feedback works in your favor as it levels the playing field. Had you come directly here instead of resuming your issue in politics, you could have posted your opinion without being banned.

You'd have still had an audience for your rebellion but you and nesf would be on equal terms.

Sorry sceptre - I just saw you moved the thread to helpdesk. I'll stand down and let you guys take over.

corkstudent

GuanYin wrote: »

To be fair, directing such disputes to helpdesk or feedback works in your favor as it levels the playing field. Had you come directly here instead of resuming your issue in politics, you could have posted your opinion without being banned.

You'd have still had an audience for your rebellion but you and nesf would be on equal terms.

Sorry sceptre - I just saw you moved the thread to helpdesk. I'll stand down and let you guys take over.

In FEEDBACK? In most feedback threads the "neutral" members tend to defend the mods just to stop someone "whining".

Helpdesk is theoretically an improvement, but the problem is that most of those sort of comments are made by the mods.

Actually that's the brunt of this issue - I dispise nesf and the others as moderators because they elevate themselves far above me. A good moderator simply does not do this. I do not feel comfortable being talked down to, and then having them come in and arrogant say I was "simply" being told what to do.

The reason I posted that in politics is because really, nesf should have brought that up via PM. He got his say on the nature of style vs. substance in an argument, and according to the rules, I was not allowes refute it. Given this is a basic principle of logical argument, this is pretty goddamn nuts. I think "keeping on topic" is way overstated. There are sometimes when side discussions are more than relevant, indirectly.

sceptre

OK, it's late in the evening so I'll have to be quick for the moment.

Posts arguing with moderator decisions or requests go into the Help Desk or Feedback forums for a specific reason: where a thread is discussing a particular topic and that thread is derailed into a discussion of a mod decision it wrecks the original thread, both for the person who started it and other people interested in having a discussion on that topic.

In this specific case, one of the Politics moderators asked you to tone down your language in this thread, specifically as a result of this post. What I can see is another off-topic comeback from you, another request from the moderator which in this case offered you the Feedback forum as a better place to vent, another very long comeback from you that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread and then (and only then) a banning by the moderator from the forum for a week.

I fail to see how this might be surprising.

GuanYin

You were "chastized" over a generalized insult you aimed at a sector of society merely because you don't agree with their opinions.

That isn't discussion, debate or argument. It doesn't contribute anything and it doesn't stimulate any further discussion or debate. He was right to call you on it.

corkstudent

sceptre wrote: »

OK, it's late in the evening so I'll have to be quick for the moment.

Posts arguing with moderator decisions or requests go into the Help Desk or Feedback forums for a specific reason: where a thread is discussing a particular topic and that thread is derailed into a discussion of a mod decision it wrecks the original thread, both for the person who started it and other people interested in having a discussion on that topic.

In this specific case, one of the Politics moderators asked you to tone down your language in this thread, specifically as a result of this post. What I can see is another off-topic comeback from you, another request from the moderator which in this case offered you the Feedback forum as a better place to vent, another very long comeback from you that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread and then (and only then) a banning by the moderator from the forum for a week.

I fail to see how this might be surprising.

You're not saying anything that hasn't already been posted, and that I've replied to.

Again, why can such comments not be sent via PM, and why is it acceptable to take that kind of tone? If I took that kind of tone, it would not be acceptable either. Threatening moderation action like that is poor form and not how moderators should act.

corkstudent

GuanYin wrote: »

You were "chastized" over a generalized insult you aimed at a sector of society merely because you don't agree with their opinions.

Or because that person, in of himself, was being disrespectful of those with other opinions, dismissing them as immature students and "armchair socialists"? Please do not try to turn it into a strawman.

That isn't discussion, debate or argument. It doesn't contribute anything and it doesn't stimulate any further discussion or debate. He was right to call you on it.

However, it was attached to a post that did contain reasoning and an argument. If the post had contained only that insult, it would be just spam. However it was not, so you do not, and you are still advocating the style over substance fallacy.

I do not understand why there are moderators who do not understand basic logic.

I don't feel anyone is dealing with my points head on and this is becoming frustrating. I still don't see any good defense for why it's appropriate for mods to swing around their ban hammer like some kind of weapon.

Warning someone that you'll do something does not make it acceptable - appeal to consequences, force, etc. That's why I don't like these "to be fair" comments, by definition, it's pretty unfair.

sceptre

corkstudent wrote: »

Again, why can such comments not be sent via PM

They can. They usually aren't, for a simple reason: a moderator instruction on-thread can be seen by everyone. Where a PM is sent instead, it's far more likely that the original post driving the thread off-topic is answered by someone else, because they're unaware that the mod has called it as off-topic, irrelevant, or thread derailing, meaning that more PMs have to be sent, while all the while the thread is being driven more and more off-topic. It also makes mod actions visible and questionable by anyone in either Feedback or the Help Desk.

and why is it acceptable to take that kind of tone?

Being asked simply to tone it down or post elsewhere is a reasonable response to a post that contained at least five instances of unacceptable language. Posting a tirade of a long post objecting to a moderator request after that is unlikely to result in anything other than a banning.

corkstudent

sceptre wrote: »

They can. They usually aren't, for a simple reason: a moderator instruction on-thread can be seen by everyone. Where a PM is sent instead, it's far more likely that the original post driving the thread off-topic is answered by someone else, because they're unaware that the mod has called it as off-topic, irrelevant, or thread derailing, meaning that more PMs have to be sent, while all the while the thread is being driven more and more off-topic. It also makes mod actions visible and questionable by anyone in either Feedback or the Help Desk.

I believe you are missing the point here - there is a big difference between telling people to get back on topic, and threatening a person with the banhammer for questioning your decisions, etc.

It is possible to say "let's stay on topic, folks", without "I'm gunna ****en ban you mate" after it.

The issue here isn't the moderator simply saying to keep it on topic - the idea of a ban was specifically brought up with me.

Being asked simply to tone it down or post elsewhere is a reasonable response to a post that contained at least five instances of unacceptable language. Posting a tirade of a long post objecting to a moderator request after that is unlikely to result in anything other than a banning.

Where is your reasoning for this? There is no because or why; you simply state what IS reasonable. I am unsure if any boards moderators have any concept as to what "reason" is.

I posted 2 lines on how focusing on style over substance was a good idea, and that hypothetically, if you can only moderate style, then that's a very bad thing indeed.

This is a very valid point in political discussion. It is unfair that a moderator can criticise the tone of my argument and I am not allowed to defend myself.It was not just a moderator either, but another member. I should be allowed to defend my posts.