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

A 3rd Pro-CT Mod For CT Forum

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520293

    Okay note here that in post 5 the OP is referred to as "stupid".

    No action taken.

    No idea what that other chap got banned for

    Edit: I can only assume that the "stupid" remark slipped by unconsciously due the the moderators agreement with the suggestion.
    Did you link to the wrong thread? Post 5 just says "A what?!?!"


  • Options
    #33
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    humanji wrote: »
    Did you link to the wrong thread? Post 5 just says "A what?!?!"

    my mistake - post 6


  • Options
    #34
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,742 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    humanji wrote: »
    Did you link to the wrong thread? Post 5 just says "A what?!?!"

    I think he meant Reply 5, ie. Post 6.

    The OP wasn't referred to as stupid, his claim that the internet is not a dangerous place was. From what I understand, John Rockerfeller (or whatever his name is) said that the internet is a dangerous place because it can pose a threat to national security. The OP claimed Rockerfeller was saying this for his own selfish reasons. Then someone said that the internet is a dangerous place and that claiming otherwise is stupid.

    As for the other chap, he was clearly trying to annoy everyone by making extremely strange comments and not explaining them when asked, which was proved when the next two posters both said "What?"

    Seems pretty clear cut to me


  • Options
    #35
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    internet is a dangerous place and that claiming otherwise is stupid.

    Or more put simply post 6: what you just said was stupid
    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    As for the other chap, he was clearly trying to annoy everyone by making extremely strange comments and not explaining them when asked, which was proved when the next two posters both said "What?"

    Seems pretty clear cut to me

    ffs, he passed a comment that went over peoples heads, including mine. yeah..Off with his head!

    6th then in mode mode asked him to explain himself. Which for me is out of order all by itself.

    He did so. And included a CT in joke, which presumably went over peoples heads - another valid reason for having a mod who understands the subject matter.

    = Banning.


  • Options
    #36
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    internet is a dangerous place and that claiming otherwise is stupid.

    Or more put simply post 6: what you just said was stupid



    ffs, he passed a comment that went over peoples heads, including mine. yeah..Off with his head!

    6th then in mode mode asked him to explain himself. Which for me is out of order all by itself.

    He did so. And included a CT in joke, which presumably went over peoples heads - another valid reason for having a mod who understands the subject matter.

    = Banning.
    Well he looked to be trolling. 6th asked him to explain his post to see if he was, and his replay made it seem like he was. So he was banned. There's enough people taking the piss on that forum so you can't blame the mods for cutting it short.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Who is the suggested third mod, for the grassy knoll?


  • Options
    #38
    Nerin
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Gordon wrote: »
    Who is the suggested third mod, for the grassy knoll?
    picture.php?pictureid=2874&albumid=562&dl=1240775841&thumb=1

    i'll do it...

    Muhahahaha


  • Options
    #39
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Gordon wrote: »
    Who is the suggested third mod, for the grassy knoll?

    Mysterious....Only joking, but there is a user by the name of Kernel who personally I think would be up to the job.

    Like I think someone said you'd need to be able to leave your biases at the door, and some I feel would be too emotially wrapped up in their beliefs.


  • Options
    #40
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    humanji wrote: »
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Well he looked to be trolling. 6th asked him to explain his post to see if he was, and his replay made it seem like he was. So he was banned. There's enough people taking the piss on that forum so you can't blame the mods for cutting it short.

    You seem like an intelligent person. In all honesty do you think he was trolling?

    I really don't. I think he communicated rather badly what he was trying to say, twice.

    But that is not in breach of the charter.


  • Options
    #41
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Mysterious....Only joking, but there is a user by the name of Kernel who personally I think would be up to the job.

    Like I think someone said you'd need to be able to leave your biases at the door, and some I feel would be too emotially wrapped up in their beliefs.
    I don't really think there's a need for another mod, but if the powers that be decide there is, then I agree that Kernel would be a great choice (although somebody might want to tell them before they get lumped with the job! :D ).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    orestes wrote: »
    Yet you can only provide a link to one? Not trying to sound like a smart-arse or anything, but you're gonna have to back up your claims with a little bit more substantial evidence if your suggestion is gonna be taken seriously imo

    I'm not just talking about specific instances. Its the overall antagonistic and spiteful thats present in every thread.

    A look through any of the decent sized threads should show this.

    Here as an example is the most recent posted in thread on the forum.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055559178

    8 of the first 10 posts here were mocking the ideas of the OP.

    How can this be positive to discussion?


  • Options
    #43
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Did you report them?


  • Options
    #44
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    humanji wrote: »
    Did you report them?

    There is no point in reporting anything that is plain to see.

    On the subject of this:

    "On medical questions MY OWN opinion is
    I WILL NEVER EVER TAKE A VACCINE "

    Some of the replies were

    -
    phantom_lord wrote: »
    good stuff. hopefully we wont have to suffer you much longer so.

    -
    strewelpeter wrote: »
    OK so you are entitled to your deranged ravings but will you please please do the human race a favour and have yourself sterilised before you breed.

    Two of the most disgusting comments I have ever seen posted on a message board. And for what? For a guy posting a CT in a CT forum.

    Admittedly they were "infracted".

    But weigh up wishing death and sterilisation on someone and infracted vs calling someone "closed minded" and a 6 month ban. There is no consistency there.


  • Options
    #45
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »

    Two of the most disgusting comments I have ever seen posted on a message board. And for what? For a guy posting a CT in a CT forum.

    Admittedly they were "infracted".

    But weigh up wishing death and sterilisation on someone and infracted vs calling someone "closed minded" and a 6 month ban. There is no consistency there.

    Did they just recently come back from a month long ban, be warned several times by both moderators and argue with them in the thread?

    I don't think it's the same thing.


  • Options
    #46
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    There is no point in reporting anything that is plain to see.

    Mods can't read every single post in the forums we mod, the time required to do so would be insane for some of the busier forums (I used to mod the nocturnal forum, reading every post in the Lair alone took one hour every single day at one point, I shit you not). We rely on reported posts to point us in the direction of stuff that needs our attention.

    If you have issue with posts you should report them, otherwise you can't really complain that nothing was done about them to be honest, and calling the modding of a forum into question over someting like this seems unfair to me.


  • Options
    #47
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean. I never said 6th broke the CT forum charter. Mysterious however, did.

    No my point was that since you seem to have noticed all of Mysterious' indiscretions perhaps too you may have noticed where 6th broke his own charter.


  • Options
    #48
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    orestes wrote: »
    Mods can't read every single post in the forums we mod, the time required to do so would be insane for some of the busier forums (I used to mod the nocturnal forum, reading every post in the Lair alone took one hour every single day at one point, I shit you not). We rely on reported posts to point us in the direction of stuff that needs our attention.

    If you have issue with posts you should report them, otherwise you can't really complain that nothing was done about them to be honest, and calling the modding of a forum into question over someting like this seems unfair to me.

    I agree. Personally I have no issues with the moderators, individually, collectively or otherwise from my own experiences.

    Also, I appreciate it is a difficult and thankless tasks.

    I don't want to keep banging on about this. But thanks to all who contributed feedback.

    In a nutshell. I personally think a 3rd mod more sympathethic to conspiracy thinking would be benificial for the forum. It would add another dimension to the modding and I feel would make a better place to post.


  • Options
    #49
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    King Mob wrote: »
    Did they just recently come back from a month long ban, be warned several times by both moderators and argue with them in the thread?

    I don't think it's the same thing.

    Yeah but banned for what and by whom?


  • Options
    #50
    RoundyMooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭RoundyMooney


    SFK, you're contradicting yourself somewhat here.

    You have previously alluded that mods let their personal bias(es) dictate their actions.

    Actually you pretty much nailed 6th on that, as he is but one of two you mentioned. Unfair IMO. There are two other CT mods too, but I'm unsure as to why you have omitted them.

    FTR, I feel there is far much emphasis put on moderators and moderation on this site, on both sides of the divide (but by no small margin propogated with gusto by mods themselves, as in banhammer, back on topic, hur de hur hur). Mods are mods in their own fora, but only up to a point etc.

    That aside, I feel it's actually a healthy trend to have an outside pair of eyes tasked with keeping a forum in order, such as is required (the mod role is greatly over rated in many instances too). Many examples all valid, have been cited here where mods without an interest in the root topic have been brought in, with generally neutral or positive results.

    You have yet to cite meaningful instances of where you feel this approach has failed on CT, a forum which has received long over due attention recently due to scurrilous behaviour on the part of someone tasked with applying impartiality therein.

    Bear in mind too, that mods cannot dictate the flow of a forum, nor should they. If there is a bias among the userbase in favour of a sceptical standpoint, then what do you expect them to do?

    My own, somewhat irrelevant opinion, is that 90% of what is posited on CT is so ridiculous as to call into question the mental state of those who post such allegations as Bush being a Lizard, Obama being the antichrist etc. etc. However, that's irrelevant inasmuch as people are free to post such notions, as indeed are others free to debate their integrity. It seems to me that the bolded part here is what you have the most problem with.

    Believe me, if I thought you had a case, I'd be the first one to take your side, but I really don't see merit in this.

    /ramble


  • Options
    #51
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Yeah but banned for what and by whom?
    For going off topic despite warnings and by 6th. And the higher ups felt the ban was warranted: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055533304
    What's your point?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,220 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    There is no point in reporting anything that is plain to see.
    Thats kinda like saying theres no point in calling an ambulance because eventually one will try to drive past the accident site.

    Reporting the post greatly expedites the time it takes for a mod to act on a post.


  • Options
    #53
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    RoundyMooney wrote: »
    SFK, you're contradicting yourself somewhat here.


    You have previously alluded that mods let their personal bias(es) dictate their actions.[/quote]


    My feeling is that this would more likely happen sub-consciously
    RoundyMooney wrote: »
    Actually you pretty much nailed 6th on that, as he is but one of two you mentioned. Unfair IMO. There are two other CT mods too, but I'm unsure as to why you have omitted them.

    Any other mods don't do anything, at least visibly.
    RoundyMooney wrote: »
    FTR, I feel there is far much emphasis put on moderators and moderation on this site, on both sides of the divide (but by no small margin propogated with gusto by mods themselves, as in banhammer, back on topic, hur de hur hur). Mods are mods in their own fora, but only up to a point etc.

    That aside, I feel it's actually a healthy trend to have an outside pair of eyes tasked with keeping a forum in order, such as is required (the mod role is greatly over rated in many instances too). Many examples all valid, have been cited here where mods without an interest in the root topic have been brought in, with generally neutral or positive results.

    You have yet to cite meaningful instances of where you feel this approach has failed on CT, a forum which has received long over due attention recently due to scurrilous behaviour on the part of someone tasked with applying impartiality therein.

    Bear in mind too, that mods cannot dictate the flow of a forum, nor should they. If there is a bias among the userbase in favour of a sceptical standpoint, then what do you expect them to do?

    My own, somewhat irrelevant opinion, is that 90% of what is posited on CT is so ridiculous as to call into question the mental state of those who post such allegations as Bush being a Lizard, Obama being the antichrist etc. etc. However, that's irrelevant inasmuch as people are free to post such notions, as indeed are others free to debate their integrity. It seems to me that the bolded part here is what you have the most problem with.

    Believe me, if I thought you had a case, I'd be the first one to take your side, but I really don't see merit in this.

    /ramble

    I appreciate all that you have said and i have said as much as I really can say, I've already made it more personal than I intended.

    But if the forum is skeptic dominated then surely it is not a CT forum anymore it is an anti-CT forum.

    To make clear I have no problem in posters posting rebuttals or anything else it is the constant superior manner which for me is the problem.


  • Options
    #54
    RoundyMooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭RoundyMooney


    "Trophy" mods. Another beef of mine. Why take the role if you're going to go around with your finger up your butt?

    Give someone who actually gives a damn a chance.


  • Options
    #55
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,742 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    No my point was that since you seem to have noticed all of Mysterious' indiscretions perhaps too you may have noticed where 6th broke his own charter.

    I noticed all of mysterious' indiscretions because from his very first post from when his ban was lifted, he was doing the same things that got him banned in the first place, as I knew he would. Its not like I just noticed mysterious' indiscretions, I was looking out for them.

    But anyway, we're getting off the beaten track here. I'd be more than happy for Kernel to be a mod. So long as any mod chosen keeps personal belief seperate from the job at hand


  • Options
    #56
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Haven't gone through all of the thread, but the jist is this:

    Mods, being human beings, will be pro- and anti- whatever. However, this should not reflect in their moderation. Simple as. There should be no need for a "pro-CT" moderator because in any case, his preference to support crazy theories shouldn't reflect in his/her moderation.

    Same goes for the other moderators. They are perfectly entitled to post from one or other POV, but when moderating, their actions should be wholly separate from their opinions.

    But they are human, and mistakes can be made, and it's not a de-modding offence. Usual rules apply - if you don't think a mod is being even-handed, you can start a thread in helpdesk and we can discuss it.

    If you want somewhere where you can discuss conspiracy theories without outside influence or interference, you can set up a private social group and only allow in those who you want to allow in. Otherwise, you have a public forum, so get used to dealing with the public.


  • Options
    #57
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    I'd be reprorting every 2nd post in that case unfortunately.

    As a user of that forum, it is down to you and the rest of the forum members to report posts that are in breach of the charter and spirit of this site.
    No mod had the time to read every single post.
    If you are not helping in this capacity, then don't you think it a bit rich to be complaining about things not being dealt with correctly?

    As has been pointed out by the delightful orestes, I don't surf. Never been on a board.
    I am still quite capable of dealing with someone in breach of the charter.
    I don't need to be able to surf in order to carry out that task.

    Mods will always be grateful when people become more pro-active in the forum they use.
    Everyone benifits.


  • Options
    #58
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Here is a very clear case of double-standards.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60015993&highlight=mysterious+warning#post60015993

    Post 79 = Mysterious banned for 6 months for saying on 28/4:
    mysterious wrote: »
    This is proof your not in any capactiy to be opened minded, because it goes outside your perception of reality.

    vs
    Spoken to Mysterious.
    6th wrote: »
    Sorry but what do you know about him other than how he is put across by the media that you dont trust in the first place? Seriously, to presume something about someone like that is very closed minded.

    Post 24 is also personal.

    I appreciate the ban was for persistent breaches, but I was looking through them and generally they are unwarranted IMO.

    Mostly in response to this element of the charter that has never to my notice been enforced

    "• Claims, Evidence, Proof
    If you are stating something as fact please post your sources or any relevant links/info. Doing so will strengthen your point. Where someone states something as their opinion it is just that, an opinion. Asking "why" they believe something if fine, demanding proof/evidence is not."

    & aren't infractions supposed to expire?


  • Options
    #59
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Overheal wrote: »
    Thats kinda like saying theres no point in calling an ambulance because eventually one will try to drive past the accident site.

    Reporting the post greatly expedites the time it takes for a mod to act on a post.

    I'd disagree. For me it is like saying there is no point in calling a fire brigade for a fire in a fire station.


  • Options
    #60
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,220 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Youre assuming 2 mods work round the clock pouring through every post made on a forum. Even though they may have lives. Or moderate many other forums, and be responsible for moderating in effect, thousands of posts per day. Even in forums with many mods (After Hours, Personal Issues) it is unrealistic to assume one of the Mods is available 24/7/365. Its a volunteer gig.

    Mod's aren't going to get offended here: if you feel you have to report "every 2nd post" if thats really the case (doubt it), then do. Reported posts are visible to the Forum Mods, their Category Mods, the Super Mods and the Admins. In short you don't even need to visit the forum to see that posts have been reported there. Or at least thats my understanding.
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    & aren't infractions supposed to expire?

    The Points Expire. If you accumulate 10 points at any one time, you are given an automatic, short-term siteban.

    The Infraction itself does not. Mods can see years after the fact that in 2002 you were infracted for trolling in the Soccer Forum. For example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    What you need to understand is that it is not isolated posts that may fly under the radar, that is to be expected. The problem for me is the agressive, comptemptious underbelly of hostility against all who put forward CT thoughts by the majority there who are skeptics.

    To make it clear, I have no problem being questioned, corrected or whatever just with being disrespected.

    Think about it...I have nothing against skeptics, but why are they there in a CT forum at all?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement