Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

preferential treatment to others with mod status

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 46,106 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Gandy, why are you hell bent on pursuing this matter to the point of derailing this thread and making a complete nuisance of yourself?

    Do you loiter outside Leinster House during the day in an attempted to discredit all those poor politicians who the public perceive as having double standards?


  • Options
    #123
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    GuanYin wrote: »
    I want this site to improve too. If I see an issue that I think needs addressing, I'll support it. I think most people would.

    OK then. I think its wrong and bad for the site if certain people are above the rules. I asked if this was happening, and I gave an a few examples of people making personally abusive posts where no sanction was taken.

    I think its bad form that rules should apply to some but not to others, and I thought it might be worth starting a feedback thread about it.

    What do you think of this? Do you think that rules should apply equally or that certain people should be above the rules? What is your opinion on the posts of amp and dev linked above? Why do you think no sanction was issued for either post and do you agree? I am genuinely interested in your response.

    I have been accused of making all sorts of "petty accusations" etc, but if you know anything about feedback here thats the way threads are sometimes destined to go ... its just the way things are ... if your not tough and willing to fight you get devoured.

    GuanYin wrote: »
    Why won't you actually tell us your complaint and your proposed resolution? Is it a secret?

    I have tried to be as clear as possible in the midst of the usual feedback noise. I have been accused and insulted in this and other threads, and it has sometimes been difficult to make my point.

    Can I ask if you have read this and the other related threads fully? If so, I think my point comes across clearly enough.




    Time to sort this for good now. I ask the BGRH mods to clarify this situation by telling us what "appropriate action" was taken.


  • Options
    #124
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    muffler wrote: »
    Gandy, why are you hell bent on pursuing this matter to the point of derailing this thread and making a complete nuisance of yourself?

    Do you loiter outside Leinster House during the day in an attempted to discredit all those poor politicians who the public perceive as having double standards?

    Why do you insist on calling me "gandy"? Is it in some vain attempt at an insult or something?

    Just curious.

    I'm also curious as to exactly what you are contributing to this thread. Is it all about trying to get in a few snide digs at this point?

    Why dont you make a valid and worthwhile contribution? Tell us what you think of double standards on this site (perceived or real), and give us your opinion on the posts linked to above.

    Go on, you can do it! We're all waiting with baited breath!


  • Options
    #125
    trout
    Registered Users Posts: 9,945 ✭✭✭trout


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Time to sort this for good now. I ask the BGRH mods to clarify this situation by telling us what "appropriate action" was taken.

    Clarified by Robbo above.


  • Options
    #126
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    Robbo wrote: »
    No one reported the post in question, I let it stand myself.
    trout wrote: »
    Clarified by Robbo above.

    So can I clarify that calling someone a "cnnt" in BGRH will be let stand.

    This type of personal abuse is now allowed in BGRH?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    smashey
    Registered Users Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Time to sort this for good now. I ask the BGRH mods to clarify this situation by telling us what "appropriate action" was taken.
    Robbo already answered this...
    No one reported the post in question, I let it stand myself.

    I'm not going to revisit it the best part of a year onwards just because it's been raised as some cause célèbre. That's all you're getting out of me on this.


  • Options
    #128
    trout
    Registered Users Posts: 9,945 ✭✭✭trout


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    So can I clarify that calling someone a "cnnt" in BGRH will be let stand.

    This type of personal abuse is now allowed in BGRH?

    No. No it's not.


  • Options
    #129
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    trout wrote: »
    No. No it's not.

    Well then why was no sanction taken with the post in question?

    Surely that makes a mockery of the claim that no one is above the rules here?

    Dev himself said about that specific post ...
    trout wrote: »
    ... nor do I believe I should be held to any higher standards than anyone else. I contend that I have not had any special treatment.

    So are you saying this is not the case? If dev is correct we can all call each other "cnnts" in BGRH!!!

    Or are you saying dev is wrong?


  • Options
    #130
    trout
    Registered Users Posts: 9,945 ✭✭✭trout


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    OK, I ask again ... can I clarify that calling someone a "cnnt" in BGRH will be let stand.

    This type of personal abuse is now allowed in BGRH?

    I'll answer again. No. No it's not.


  • Options
    #131
    smashey
    Registered Users Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    OK, I ask again ... can I clarify that calling someone a "cnnt" in BGRH will be let stand.

    This type of personal abuse is now allowed in BGRH?
    It isn't allowed and I will ban anybody who uses that term or any similar terms. As for the original post, I wasn't a mod there at the time but I trust Robbo's judgement on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 46,106 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Why do you insist on calling me "gandy"? Is it in some vain attempt at an insult or something?
    its an affectionate term. If you are more content with me calling you Gandalf23 then I shall.
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    I'm also curious as to exactly what you are contributing to this thread. Is it all about trying to get in a few snide digs at this point?
    Snide digs? Now you are letting yourself down.
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Why dont you make a valid and worthwhile contribution? Tell us what you think of double standards on this site (perceived or real), and give us your opinion on the posts linked to above.
    I asked you a couple of questions above and a bit earlier which you so far have refused to answer. You put questions to me at one point and then followed that up by telling me not to answer them.

    You have made some wide sweeping statements re the amount of alleged support you have yet when you were given the opportunity to prove this you squirmed just like a senior HSE executive after watching the national news this evening.

    Shit or get off the pot lad.


  • Options
    #133
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The mods took what action was appropriate at the time and that is that.

    See I have trust in my fellow co mods and I would like to think they do in me and
    we have have the trust of the admins and we trust the admins in turn.

    This turst is about taking the appropriate actions needed when they are needed.
    Not what other people see as the 'rigth' thing as they don't and at times can't know all
    of the context.

    Clearly you don't trust the admins or the mods of this site or trust the system
    which is in place on the site and for the most part functions well.

    Which only leaves one question, why are you still posting here ?


  • Options
    #134
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    smashey wrote: »
    It isn't allowed and I will ban anybody who uses that term or any similar terms. As for the original post, I wasn't a mod there at the time but I trust Robbo's judgement on it.

    Could you clarify the bit in bold please?

    It sounds like you are justifying personal abuse in your own forum.



    And just to clarify, trout said...
    trout wrote: »
    No. No it's not.

    Well then why was no sanction taken with the post in question?

    Surely that makes a mockery of the claim that no one is above the rules here?

    Dev himself said about that specific post ...
    trout wrote: »
    ... nor do I believe I should be held to any higher standards than anyone else. I contend that I have not had any special treatment.

    So are you saying this is not the case? If dev is correct we can all call each other "cnnts" in BGRH!!!

    Or are you saying dev is wrong?


  • Options
    #135
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The mods took what action was appropriate at the time and that is that.

    ?

    his sounds like something a politician would say.

    I don't know why we can't just say "well, the guy owns the place, so we can't ban him".

    There's nothing wrong with that. If I owned it I wouldn't let people ban me.


  • Options
    #136
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    muffler wrote: »
    You have made some wide sweeping statements re the amount of alleged support you have yet when you were given the opportunity to prove this you squirmed just like a senior HSE executive after watching the national news this evening.

    Let me get this straight ... are you asking me to publish (or allow access) to pm's without the permission of the sender?


  • Options
    #137
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    I don't know why we can't just say "well, the guy owns the place, so we can't ban him".

    There's nothing wrong with that. If I owned it I wouldn't let people ban me.

    Well said!



    The BGRH mods are coming out of this looking very bad IMHO.


  • Options
    #138
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The mods took what action was appropriate at the time and that is that.

    With the greatest respect that is a cowardly answer. Nothing was done ... why not just admit it.
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Clearly you don't trust the admins or the mods of this site or trust the system
    which is in place on the site and for the most part functions well.

    Which only leaves one question, why are you still posting here ?

    I was wondering when this old chestnut would be rolled out! I expected better from you T, but then maybe not.


  • Options
    #139
    trout
    Registered Users Posts: 9,945 ✭✭✭trout


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Well then why was no sanction taken with the post in question?

    I've searched the Reported Posts thread. No report was made - either by you, the OP in that thread, or anybody else.
    Not then, and not in the 11 months since then.

    If you felt so strongly about it at the time, and I am willing to believe you did, why didn't you report the post ?
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    So are you saying this is not the case? If dev is correct we can all call each other "cnnts" in BGRH!!!

    No.
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Or are you saying dev is wrong?

    Wrong to use such language in that post ? Honestly, I would say yes. Is that what you want to hear ?


  • Options
    #140
    sukikettle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭sukikettle


    Mods my trollix...mods suck...they're secret little office nerds who can only get a power trip doing this shyte...watch the first nerd swing his gavel


  • Options
    #141
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 46,106 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    sukikettle wrote: »
    Mods my trollix...mods suck...they're secret little office nerds who can only get a power trip doing this shyte...watch the first nerd swing his gavel
    I work for the ESB and get all the power I want at staff rate


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    smashey
    Registered Users Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    Could you clarify the bit in bold please?

    It sounds like you are justifying personal abuse in your own forum.
    Why? I had no involvement at the time so I wasn't privvy to any conversations that may have taken place between Robbo and Dev.

    Now, if anybody posts abuse in any of the fora I moderate, I don't care who they are as they will be banned. Furthermore, if that person happened to be an Admin, and as we have already established that we can't ban Admins, I wouldn't hesitate in letting them know what they did wrong.
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    The BGRH mods are coming out of this looking very bad IMHO.
    It wouldn't matter what we say here, you'll always find a way of twisting it to suit your own agenda. I'm sure I speak for the rest of the BGRH mods here when I say we don't moderate to please you.


  • Options
    #143
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    trout wrote: »
    I've searched the Reported Posts thread. No report was made - either by you, the OP in that thread, or anybody else.
    Not then, and not in the 11 months since then.

    So is this the criteria being used in BGRH these days? A post is only personal abuse if its reported?

    So then, can I call someone a "cnnt" and that will be allowed if the post is not reported?

    Is personal abuse specifically prohibited in the charter? I think it is. Quote from the charter "Boards.ie has a no personal abuse policy and while there may be banter in the bar and the forum in general any argy bargy which results in stress and has the wimmins and brothers muttering into their pints will have the punter responsible removed from the premises and barred. This goes for splash damage from other threads/posts in more contentious forums like Feedback or HelpDesk"

    So does this still apply, or is it now overruled by your statement that its only personal abuse if the post is reported?


  • Options
    #144
    smashey
    Registered Users Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    sukikettle wrote: »
    they're secret little office nerds
    Says some anonymous Joe from behind his PC/laptop.

    Wow, I wasn't expecting any keyboard warriors tonight.


  • Options
    #145
    smashey
    Registered Users Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    So is this the criteria being used in BGRH these days? A post is only personal abuse if its reported?

    So then, can I call someone a "cnnt" and that will be allowed if the post is not reported?

    Is personal abuse specifically prohibited in the charter? I think it is. Quote from the charter "Boards.ie has a no personal abuse policy and while there may be banter in the bar and the forum in general any argy bargy which results in stress and has the wimmins and brothers muttering into their pints will have the punter responsible removed from the premises and barred. This goes for splash damage from other threads/posts in more contentious forums like Feedback or HelpDesk"

    So does this still apply, or is it now overruled by your statement that its only personal abuse if the post is reported?
    If you called someone a cnnt on BGRH, I would ban you whether or not it was reported.


  • Options
    #146
    sukikettle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭sukikettle


    Oi Smashey...musta hit a nerve...I never said I didn't like office nerds;)


  • Options
    #147
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    I'm going to number my points, because I think it only fair you address all of them.
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    OK then. I think its wrong and bad for the site if certain people are above the rules. I asked if this was happening, and I gave an a few examples of people making personally abusive posts where no sanction was taken.

    1. You were given how many examples of mods/users who broke the rules. Are you suggesting it is the norm? Are you highlighting the handful of incidents against the 900 mods most of whom have perfect records, often in the face of reckless abuse.
    I think its bad form that rules should apply to some but not to others, and I thought it might be worth starting a feedback thread about it.

    2. You didn't start this thread. You highjacked it with little regard for the OP.
    Why should you be above him/her?
    What do you think of this? Do you think that rules should apply equally or that certain people should be above the rules? What is your opinion on the posts of amp and dev linked above? Why do you think no sanction was issued for either post and do you agree? I am genuinely interested in your response.

    3. DeVore is the site owner and while I would say I'd risk my modship in taking him on if he wantonly disregarded the rules of the forum I modded, I don't think he did so here. I think everybody slips from time to time. We are all human. He said what he thought without filtering and while that may have been inappropriate I may have done so myself as has everyone.

    In the big picture, he owns the site and allows us to play here. For a long, long time we did so on his dime. Does it mean he should be allowed abuse people? No. Does it mean he holds a special status on the site. Even I can say yes to that. And I'm not one for endearing myself to other mods (most of them hate me as I'm sure you realize).

    Now I don't know what happened at the time, I'm pretty sure that the mods would have taken issue with it. That is their deal. I don't enter that forum but I understand there is a strong community there. I wouldn't dare dream of telling them what they should have done because I don't have their gig. I am sure that by DeVore's own posting standard, he is probably as annoyed as you are by his own comment. At least in the colorfulness of it.

    4. I have no idea about amp. He's site-banned now so it is all pretty academic. Sometimes when people who shouldn't go nuts do so, it takes a while to react while you think "WTF!!". The fact is, he did it once too often, he's gone and there is little that can be achieved by playing out what-ifs.
    I have been accused of making all sorts of "petty accusations" etc, but if you know anything about feedback here thats the way threads are sometimes destined to go ... its just the way things are ... if your not tough and willing to fight you get devoured.
    No it isn't.

    5. They only go that way because people take that attitude. They accomplish nothing. You can't degenerate the thread and then complain that it is because "that happens". Take responsibility for your actions, especially if you're going to take shots at others.

    If you'd posted clearly, concisely and without rancor, *maybe*, just *maybe* this thread could have been looked at, someone may have said, yeah, you might have some point, we'll look at it. OK, the scope here is a grander things, but I think if you want a professional response, you have to make a professional complaint. You don't, or at least shouldn't, call up your local TV service call center and make a rambling non-specific diatribe about the call center manager swearing at someone once. You make a succinct clear point that the person dealing with the complaint can address or escalate.

    We mods, for our part, need to realize that too. We need to offer that service. It can be hard, I know I fail at it too. But it is something I'd like to aspire to.

    I have tried to be as clear as possible in the midst of the usual feedback noise. I have been accused and insulted in this and other threads, and it has sometimes been difficult to make my point.

    6. Come now. Be honest. I addressed you in a clear, simple and passive manner and before the post to which I am now responding, you insulted, trolled and flamed me.

    Can I ask if you have read this and the other related threads fully? If so, I think my point comes across clearly enough.
    7. I did. It didn't.
    Moreover, the people who might be inclined to do something about it may not be inclined to read through multiple threads on multiple topics hijacked to this agenda.
    Time to sort this for good now. I ask the BGRH mods to clarify this situation by telling us what "appropriate action" was taken.

    8. As such, why not post, once and for all, clearly, in one post a concise and non-aggressive summation of the issue and your proposed solution.


  • Options
    #148
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    smashey wrote: »
    It wouldn't matter what we say here, you'll always find a way of twisting it to suit your own agenda. I'm sure I speak for the rest of the BGRH mods here when I say we don't moderate to please you.


    I have not asked you to moderate to please me specifically, but with the greatest respect to you and your fellow BGRH mods you should be moderating fairly, in line with the charter, and applying the rules in a consistent manner to all posters equally.

    Do you have a problem in doing that? I'm just asking because you seem to be arguing against what I am saying.


  • Options
    #149
    Gandalf23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Gandalf23


    smashey wrote: »
    If you called someone a cnnt on BGRH, I would ban you whether or not it was reported.

    Well then why wasn't dev banned? Are you now saying you disagree with the original decision to allow the post stand without sanction?


  • Options
    #150
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Gandalf23 you don't like BGRH mods we know that, you don't like Dev, you don't like the trust system in place again I ask if you find this site so flawed why are you still posting here ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    trout
    Registered Users Posts: 9,945 ✭✭✭trout


    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    So is this the criteria being used in BGRH these days? A post is only personal abuse if its reported?

    So then, can I call someone a "cnnt" and that will be allowed if the post is not reported?

    If you want to have a post acted on, in a timely fashion, the Report function is your friend.

    If I read a post that has personal abuse in it - I will act.
    If I see a post has been reported, I will read it - I will act.
    If a post is made, and I haven't read it - I won't be acting one way or another.
    Gandalf23 wrote: »
    So does this still apply, or is it now overruled by your statement that its only personal abuse if the post is reported?

    I didn't make any such statement. If you are making honest feedback, and I am still prepared to believe you are, you will be well served to stop twisting my words.

    Personal abuse is personal abuse.
    Personal abuse that gets reported is bound to be acted on. Even if that action doesn't suit you personally.

    Personal abuse that goes unreported, may not be read by a mod, and may not get acted on. Even 11 months later.

    So - I put my question to you again - and I would really like an answer.
    Why didn't you report the post ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement