Soccer forum. Re: Economist thread.

Helix

seamus wrote: »

If it wasn't under the boards.ie name, that would have lended some weight to Helix's argument.

the league im in is called division 2, the league the mod is in is called division 3

orestes

tallaght01 wrote: »

Thanks for yet another useful contribution

Read back over my posts in this thread please, and maybe ask an adult for help with the bigger words

The Sweeper

leninbenjamin wrote: »

ok. so this precedent that's in place, how does it work? if i attack a mod offsite, am i banned from the forums they mod, banned from my favourite forums, banned from the nearest relevant forum to the context of the abuse or what?

That depends on:

• The nature of the attack
• The terms and phrases you use
• The background to the attack, for instance whether or not you've come up against the mod before on boards.ie
• How you respond to any initial contact made by the site administrators
• How you respond to ongoing contact made by the site administrators
• Whether there's a Y in the day

And where you may be banned from, possibly, is dependent on the outcome of the above list.

So the precedent, again, is use your common sense.

Why is it so incredibly unreasonable to some of the respondents on this thread to embrace the concept that you might actually just refrain from posting abusive, character assassinating comments about clearly identified individuals in public media directly linked to and accessible by that person's peers?

Is that really so off the wall?

orestes

Helix wrote: »

thats about the 4th different reason now ive been told i was banned for

i was permabanned less than a day after i was temp banned, and before i started the helpdesk thread, without being told why in specifics

You were banned for being a prick, it's just that simple

awaits deserved bannage from an admin

Helix

orestes wrote: »

You were banned for being a prick, it's just that simple

being a prick on another site

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

There's no line. You need to stop looking for a "rule" to come out of this, because none is forthcoming. This is one of those things which will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If it wasn't under the boards.ie name, that would have lended some weight to Helix's argument.

So it's a case of walking on egg shells? The site does not have to be in anyway affiliated with boards necessarily but may have some leaning on the outcome nor is it necessary for it to a be moderator of boards that is being abused (does this also have any leaning?). In essence boards is now offering to protect it's users from each other across the net, if they feel the protection is warranted. Am I right so far?

Trojan

The crux of the matter, and really worth repeating:

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Why is it so incredibly unreasonable to some of the respondents on this thread to embrace the concept that you might actually just refrain from posting abusive, character assassinating comments about clearly identified individuals in public media directly linked to and accessible by that person's peers?

Is that really so off the wall?

Got it in one.

Helix

Trojan wrote: »

The crux of the matter, and really worth repeating:



Got it in one.

the crux of the matter is that its not in the boards rules, and it was posted on another site. i did nothing in the soccer forum to warrant a permaban from the soccer forum, in accordance with boards rules

orestes

Helix wrote: »

being a prick on another site

Nope, not just there

Beruthiel

Helix wrote: »

the crux of the matter is that its not in the boards rules, and it was posted on another site. i did nothing in the soccer forum to warrant a permaban from the soccer forum, in accordance with boards rules

Proving that you still don't get that what you did was wrong.

leninbenjamin

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

That depends on:

• The nature of the attack
• The terms and phrases you use
• The background to the attack, for instance whether or not you've come up against the mod before on boards.ie
• How you respond to any initial contact made by the site administrators
• How you respond to ongoing contact made by the site administrators
• Whether there's a Y in the day

And where you may be banned from, possibly, is dependent on the outcome of the above list.

So the precedent, again, is use your common sense.

sadly, common sense isn't so common, even among those who have sense. perception is everything mate, that's why it tends to be better to establish rles and regulations with regards conduct for institutions that grow as large as boards.ie has. Now, while i understand the need to respond to each case on it's own merits, at the same time there needs to be something of a framework in place to facilitate this in an objective and effective manner.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Why is it so incredibly unreasonable to some of the respondents on this thread to embrace the concept that you might actually just refrain from posting abusive, character assassinating comments about clearly identified individuals in public media directly linked to and accessible by that person's peers?

Is that really so off the wall?

hang on, at what point in my original post did I suggest i think otherwise?

All i'm trying to say is that the punishment should:

1. fit the crime
2. serve some purpose as to prevent such incidents in future
3. protect the victims of the crime

and i can't see how a soccer ban satisfies these. that's all i'm saying.

is this really so stupid a question?

Helix

Beruthiel wrote: »

Proving that you still don't get that what you did was wrong.

sure i still dont know precisely what ive been banned for, the goalposts have been shifted so many times

you didnt help either by refusing to actually tell me either

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

So it's a case of walking on egg shells? The site does not have to be in anyway affiliated with boards necessarily but may have some leaning on the outcome nor is it necessary for it to a be moderator of boards that is being abused (does this also have any leaning?). In essence boards is now offering to protect it's users from each other across the net, if they feel the protection is warranted. Am I right so far?

Nope. Read it again. Everyone seems to be thinking that is a straight-down-the-line, personal abuse ban. It's not.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

Nope. Read it again. Everyone seems to be thinking that is a straight-down-the-line, personal abuse ban. It's not.

But the issue of enforcing a ban at boards was atleast considered (going by the temp ban situation) just on the grounds of the abuse. After that it seems a mix of the initial abuse and the follow up is where we are now.

But my point stands that boards initial reaction was to discipline one user for abuse against another user off site. The severity of the discipline is under different circumstances, as far as I can see.

Time Magazine

Trojan wrote: »

TE, I believe you that you think you're seeing the whole picture and that it's a black or white issue. I'm a shades of grey man myself, and without intending to offend, I think you're viewing it only from your perspective.

None taken whatsoever. I'm happy to have a debate and people tell me they think I'm wrong, once they're of the same view. In fact it's precisely what I've been calling for.

Trojan wrote:

Why?

and

seamus wrote: »

So we need to have a discussion on two fronts? Surely it's better for us to come to our decision and then go to the community saying, "Here's what we came up with, what do you guys think?", rather than having concurrent discussions where our own positions might change from post to post based on a discussion happening elsewhere? I entirely disagree with your assertion that the community needed to be involved first.

are essentially the same question so I'll quote them together.

Firstly, I of course see the admin point of view here. I feel a lot of sympathy for GY. What Helix did was mean-spirited, under-handed and warranting of a right kick up the hole. I'm quite happy to say I'm not a big fan of GY's modding, but Helix's actions were several orders or magnitude worse than anything she's ever done. No disagreement there. That doesn't mean that I think he should be banned though. Similarly I think what Thaed said about that Canadian girl on tLL recently was very harsh and mean and I lost a good deal of respect for Thaed over her handling of the issue. But again I don't think she should have been banned. It's the same deal with Piss Christ, which I think should be protected under freedom of speech. There's no contradiction here.

That aside, there are two inter-related issues here that I see: the case at hand, and the more general question of "feedback in motion".

As for the case at hand you're welcome to disagree with me here, but here's my €0.02: you can't ban him for something said on another website. Talk of "protecting the boards.ie name" is roundabout rule-lawyering to be perfectly honest, it's got nothing to do with that. This has to do with the reasonable question of protecting posters from abuse off these servers. The abuse levied makes no fecking "real" difference if it was an unofficial boardsie xperteleven forum or if it was an unofficial PROC forum, it was still mean. This, imo, is a bad route to follow. Nor can you say this does not set a precedent because then you're essentially treating Helix differently. This, imo, is a bad route for Boards to follow as it (rightly) looks for more codification of things like "users' rights" and mod guidebooks. (No, this is not an argument for removal of mod discretion; it's an argument for some codification - I can see shades of grey too.)

More generally, as a result of the arguments put forward on this thread it seems as though we may be reaching a consensus that this "unanimous" decision needs revising and a compromise of maybe a month's ban for exceptional circumstances or something will probably come out. If this happens, bluntly, the admins were wrong to state that the ban was to be permanent. All this hubbub could have been avoided had the likes of wwm got the poking stick out initially. I can see the advantages to shutting people up while you make your minds up. Surely you can see how it's very similar to a shoot-first approach. It's your call where you fall on this issue. I would strongly argue that this whole incident shows just how fallible even a unanimous admin decision can be. It's fine to be fallible, but you're less likely to make a boo-boo if you debate things before rather than after. I have my suspicions that this request was seen but not acted upon. Please ask yourselves, honestly, if you're hesitant to open debate, if you can be so sure of making the right call without hearing all arguments before hand.

As I said, you're welcome to disagree with my approach here. It's your call and I understand your complaints. But keep my argument, which is reasonable, in mind. Also keep in mind that comments like "The debate is still on-going, in case you haven't noticed" indicate that some of your number may not be in the right frame of mind to take the other side of the arguments seriously, nevermind to decide their merits.

seamus wrote:

Things said in the pub are inadmissable as evidence

Helix

ShooterSF wrote: »

Bgoing by the temp ban situation

this seems to be building into something

the temp ban lasted from 9pm to 1pm the next day, before it was changed to a permaban

in the time between the issue of the temp ban and the perma ban, i made one post on the subject, which was locked because it was deemed not up for discussion at that time

the permaban wasnt based on anything i said, or did, it was based on the original issue

Time Magazine

Trojan wrote: »

I said that was the way *I saw it* - at first glance I thought you were probably a shill for his cause, but I was going offline and the thread had been locked so I didn't concern myself with it too much. A bit of context here: this happened a couple of hours before a night out, give us a break, we are human.

TE, I think you're making a serious mountain out of a molehill on this issue, and as the Dragons say, "I'm out".

I've been told that I don't come out well in text. I'm not upset about this or anything, I'm simply contributing feedback. Perhaps it's coming across as a mountain out of a molehill, but I'm here gathering data and sipping a coffee while I type; it's nothing major.

PHB

Why is it so incredibly unreasonable to some of the respondents on this thread to embrace the concept that you might actually just refrain from posting abusive, character assassinating comments about clearly identified individuals in public media directly linked to and accessible by that person's peers?

Is that really so off the wall?

Have you found many people besides Helix supporting what he says? There's plenty of people in this thread who honestly couldn't give a **** about what happens to Helix, and just are generally concerned about the rules themselves and them being fair.

I asked these questions a bit back but they got lost in the litany of posts on the subject, but I'd really love to hear the admins logic on it, because I think its inconsistant.

A. Will this apply to all associated websites?
B. Will this apply to associated events?
C. If the answer is yes to A, but not to B, what is the reason?

If the admins really want to go down the route of making what Helix did a bannable offence, good luck to them. I think however it needs to be laid out what is and isn't acceptabe. It needs to be laid out in the same way a charter lays out the rules for each forum. I don't understand why this is some special area that doesn't need the rules laid out? Every other area has them. Why is it different?

If you are going to stick to the line you are pushing through right now, which is that this doesn't set a precedent, and in general, people should just cop on, you're going to be creating a shedload of feedback threads every single time you do this, and eventually, in a couple of months, you'll end up writing up the rules anyway. You might as well work it out now and decide now.

ShooterSF

Helix wrote: »

this seems to be building into something

the temp ban lasted from 9pm to 1pm the next day, before it was changed to a permaban

in the time between the issue of the temp ban and the perma ban, i made one post on the subject, which was locked because it was deemed not up for discussion at that time

the permaban wasnt based on anything i said, or did, it was based on the original issue

I actually did see that and mentioned earlier in this topic. I wasn't claiming thats how things were done but rather looking at the bigger issue on the grounds that this is what I was told. I wasn't trying to take from your argument over whether the ban was permanent initially, I was simply discussing the idea that boards is now protecting users from abusing each other off site and mentioned the ban as temporary as I felt if I didn't the issue would be taken up over the ban itself rather than the point I was trying to get across. I hope you understand.

tallaght01

The Economist wrote: »

I've been told that I don't come out well in text. I'm not upset about this or anything, .

On the contrary....as (another) aside (I'm writing essays for uni here, hence I'm easily distracted) I was just admiring your sense of logic. Not really had anything to do with you before, either. But, whether I agree with you or not, you have a very clear logical thought progression. I think you should be a lawyer, if you're not already one :P

I'm not tryin to score you or anything, I'm just sayin :P

Boston

I'm not going to get into the actual issue of the ban since I odn't know enough about it to comment fairly.

I will say that Helix seems to be getting reprimanded for his inability to accept he did anything wrong. Since when is a user required to acknowledge that the moderator was right in order for a punishment to end? If this were the case any user who argued against an infraction or temp ban would be permabanned and this doesn't seem right.

seamus wrote: »

Nope. Read it again. Everyone seems to be thinking that is a straight-down-the-line, personal abuse ban. It's not.

Perceptions are important Seamus, often they are the only reality of a situation. Regardless of the actual reasons for the ban, if most people think it was for some personal abuse (very tenuous permaban if it was), then that becomes the reality. Allowing an open discussion is the only way to redress such perceptions. It's all well and good the Network Brain getting together and having a discussion in private and then passing a yea of ney over proceeding, but that won't do a damn thing to change perceptions since there's no transparency.

Ron DMC

From the other thread:

The Economist wrote: »

Say tonight in the pub I say to Run DMC "Yeah, stargal said she thinks you're a prick." Would I be permanently banned? I think that would be a load of crap. Even if I had a stand-up argument with someone I would hope I would not get banned for it.

I am shocked.

I cannot believe Stargal would say such a thing.

*sulks in the corner*

Helix

Boston wrote: »

I will say that Helix seems to be getting reprimanded for his inability to accept he did anything wrong

nor will i until im told exactly what ive been banned for, which i havent been yet

Xavi6

ShooterSF wrote: »

Putting aside the issue for a sec, Poor Dev has a lot of reading to do in the morning :pac:

Never mind him, my feckin head is killing me.

I don't have much to say as it seems things are way above my pay grade but -

1. I'm disappointed this went over the heads of the soccer mods from the word go. I've had to answer PMs from users not having a clue what's going on. Now I know I'm not obliged to give answers but as a general courtesy I do my best. I received one or two PMs on the issue from other mods involved, however when I replied to one I heard absolutely nothing back. What the fuck is the point in me being one of those in charge of the forum if this sort of thing is done behind my back or over my head without so much as an acknowledgement? Infuriating to say the least.

and

2. The attitude of certain experienced posters in this thread towards the soccer forum is disappointing. If you don't like it then politely feck off and don't talk down about something which a core group of people have put a lot of work into over the past few years. It's insulting and petty and I very much doubt comments from myself on their forums/interests would go down well. The sly 'close the place down' digs are unnecessary and only add fuel to an already stoked fire.

Cheers

My name is URL

From Boards.ie guidelines

Don’t take everything too seriously

also

This is not a platform for anonymous defamation. YOU are responsible for what YOU say.

I'm sure the same goes for other sites too, and probably covers vilification of character

After reading through the threads in question it seems that what Helix done was totally uncalled for, but if there's to be a rule against such acts it should be clearly set out as a ToS and not just something that's decided upon based on what user is pissed off about it, imo

Denerick

So just what has this 24 page thread proven? The mods don't back down over things like this, banning people for life is what gets most of them up in the morning. Some are more power tripping than others. Just accept it and move on.

tallaght01

Helix wrote: »

nor will i until im told exactly what ive been banned for, which i havent been yet

LOL

I did have a bit of a chuckle when I read that. Because I can see your point.

BUT, do you not think the time has come to say that what you did was a bit out of order? I know you might have had your reasons, and I have always had a soft spot for people who have a bit of a rebel streak. BUt surely you can see it wasn't all that pleasant. Like, I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me, and I suspect you wouldn't. Even if I'd done something to the other person.

I reckon be a man, and put your hands up. Honestly, you'll look a lot better for it if nothing else.

Helix

tallaght01 wrote: »

LOL

I did have a bit of a chuckle when I read that. Because I can see your point.

BUT, do you not think the time has come to say that what you did was a bit out of order? I know you might have had your reasons, and I have always had a soft spot for people who have a bit of a rebel streak. BUt surely you can see it wasn't all that pleasant. Like, I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me, and I suspect you wouldn't. Even if I'd done something to the other person.

I reckon be a man, and put your hands up. Honestly, you'll look a lot better for it if nothing else.

when im told specifically what the ban was for, in its final form, rather than the constantly changing half reasons

The Sweeper

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd, we got to 356 posts without it.

/me circles wagon sadly.

Gee-up, neddy.

seamus

Boston wrote: »

Allowing an open discussion is the only way to redress such perceptions. It's all well and good the Network Brain getting together and having a discussion in private and then passing a yea of ney over proceeding, but that won't do a damn thing to change perceptions since there's no transparency.

But to be fair Boston, we never once said, "We are going to decide this and to hell with the lot of ye". We made it very clear that the floor would be open for discussion once we had decided exactly what it is we wanted to come out of the whole thing. There's never been any lack of transparency, just a delay in hosting the discussion.