Soccer forum. Re: Economist thread.

tallaght01

Ron DMC wrote: »

I know what you mean, but I don't think emotions and modding should mix.

It's like a renegade cop taking justice into their own hands. Stick to the letter of the law. Both sides of the fence.

I broadly agree, but EVERYONE loves dirty harry!!!!

mayordenis

Can the admins meet some of us in the middle by actually just saying simply without any rhetoric that at the time he did not break a boards.ie rule?

also maybe address the point of what you consider a boards.ie affiliate - because that's cloudy at best.

Ron DMC

5starpool wrote: »

I don't really think I could disagree with you more.

A mod who deals with rules and refuses to take things on a case by case basis has no business being a mod in my opinion.

Breaking rules = bad.
Mods need to enforce them.
You are correct in that some things aren't technically against the rules but still bad and those things do need to be taken case by case.

Things that aren't against the rules are ok, unless they are deemed bad by the mods/admins (this is where case by case basis comes into it).
After a decision is made on each "bad but not technically against the rules" issue, when necessary, the rules should be updated to make such and such no longer ok in the future.

So, in this case, it should be made clear if off site comments are in future going to be used against a poster on boards.

ntlbell

Pretty amazed at this.

I don't think there's ever been an incident where Dev got involved that eventually common sense didn't prevail and I'm confident it will here.

Personally I thought the press releases was hilarious and I'm sort of annoyed that the great effort that went into the sketch hasn't shone through here, sure it was a bit rough around the edges but I think some appreciation of the comedy value from GY would have made the whole sorry mess a much smaller one.

I remember reading a post many moons ago i think from Seamus on what it is to be a good moderator, be seen not heard, make the forum "better" I think when a huge percentage of a forum turns against a mod and is constantly been dragged into feedback they're no longer adding any value to that forum maybe Seamus would like to give us another run of it as I can't find it anywhere but I think all moderators should read it.

5starpool

I think my last post was a bit knee jerk in its tone. Of course there are black and white 'rules' issues, and these should be treated as standardised punishments.

This is all a separate argument though and not really relevant to this thread at all so I'll leave it at that.

Thanx 4 The Fish

invincibleirish wrote: »

I understand GY was initially appointed by the senior people here to mod the SF to calm it down, but the flipside of it is that GY has caused more hassle then she's solved, the amount of feedback threads here about her and the demise of the OT thread are just two examples.

Seems to me admins are protecting their original 'good idea' of putting GY into the SF, even when it means banning long established SF posters on tenuous reasons.

The admins did not suggest that GY was made mod of soccer. That was me and once I had asked her if she was interested I went to the admins to get her added.

Admin conspiracy No. 267 - Quashed.

The Sweeper

To answer timeline questions:

27/05/09 afternoon to evening: admins receive complaint from GY regarding Helix' posts.

• Thread is opened on the admin forum to discuss the issue.
• Helix is temp banned from soccer and Beruthiel PMs Helix to say that she has asked GY to temp ban him from soccer in light of his comments [quotes them] while she and the admins discuss what to do.
• A couple of hours later, apparently disregarding the fact that the issue is already under discussion by the site administrators, Helix opens a helpdesk thread entitled 'Mind-Boggling Ban from Soccer'. In this thread, he posts the PM he received from Beruthiel, without having asked her permission to post the PM.
• The thread is locked by Seamus less than 15 minutes after it was opened, and he states on thread "This is not up for discussion with you right now. Your access to Soccer has been suspended while we discuss the matter among ourselves. Give us a couple of days.'
• The soccer mods in general were not contacted, but a PM was sent to KevIRL, the admin of the xpert 11 boards team, asking for his input.

At this point, the admins are still arguing the toss on what to do with Helix, whether or not this sets a precedent, and while it's generally agreed that there should be some comeback because of the sheer nastiness and vitriol of Helix's 'press release', nothing is decided yet.

Morning of the 28/05/09

• The discussion on the admin forum continues.
• In addition to Helix's press release, a second and third issue have now arisen - Helix starting a helpdesk thread even though he has been told the matter is already under discussion by admins, and him quoting Beruthiel's PM in that Helpdesk thread. (Helpdesk is where you post to have an admin look at an issue for you. We already were. We felt Helix started that thread in an effort to garner support in advance of what he obviously felt was going to be admonishment for his actions. If he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, why start the Helpdesk thread?)
• Seamus brings to light a fourth issue - stating that after he locked the Helpdesk thread on 27/05, Helix sent him a very unhappy PM detailing all of the reasons why he felt any action against him would be unjustified.

By this point, Helix's help desk thread and his ranting PMs are doing something to the admin discussion that his original press release never did - they're tipping the scales against him.

Middle of the day, 28/05/09

• Admins are now seriously pissed off with Helix's responses to what is, at this point, a temporary ban from soccer pending discussion by the admins of what should happen.
• A decision is made - as a direct result of Helix's refusal to give us the time to discuss matters and come to a conclusion, his pushing of the issue, his total refusal to see any other side of the argument but his own, and the implications that refusal has for his future conduct on the soccer forums - that Helix's ban from soccer be made permanent.

Anyone who has ever received an automated ban message will know that there's a footnote that states that responding negatively or abusively to a ban message may result in further punitive action being taken. Basically, that's what happened in the case of Helix' ban moving from temporary to permanent.

Mid afternoon, 28/05/09

• Helix starts a second helpdesk thread, this time regarding his permanent banning from soccer.

At this point it's worth mentioning that there is one statement Helix reiterates that really rankles: he refers to the quotes calling GuanYin vulgar (presumably, as they're asterisked out) names, and refuses to take any responsibility for those quotes as he maintains he's reiterating someone else's words and therefore can't be held responsible for them.

This is not washing with the admins. At all. Of all points in the press release, the abusive terms are particulary unpleasant, and Helix has focused most of his handwashing on these terms - so not only does he maintain he's done nothing at all wrong because he posted on a different site, but he maintains that he's not even been abusive, because they're not his words.

This particular aspect of Helix' response is a subject of much discussion.

Morning 29/05/09

• The Economist starts a thread on Feedback entitled 'The Problem with Precedents'. The thread is locked immediately because at this point the admins are still debating this subject on the admin forum.

Yep, that's right, even though Helix had already been permabanned from soccer, the subject was still raging. Should we do more? Less? Are we setting a precedent? If so, how will it apply? Can we stand over this as an exceptional circumstance because Helix is being such a dickhead? All of these matters are still under heated discussion.

Afternoon/evening 29/05/09

• DeV gets involved in Helix' Helpdesk thread and appears equally unimpressed by Helix refusal to put his hand up to any culpability whatsoever in terms of his actions.

30-31/05/09 and 01/06/09

The discussion continues on the admin forum. This time yet another issue is thrown in the mix - should we be encouraging a feedback thread?

It's not quite a 50/50 split, but the reasonings are as follows - the pro team want the feedback thread because they believe no discussion should be stifled. The anti team agree in principle, but are very concerned that the feedback thread will turn into GuanYin baiting, as opposed to a proper discussion of the notion of precedent. It is generally agreed that, on the back of a ban that started with GuanYin being baited and abused, it would be poor form to facilitate more of the same on the Feedback forum.

The anti team counsel waiting until the admins are decided because yep, kids, we're still talking about it. The pro team point out that our pensionable years should be better spent.

Night time, 02/06/09

This thread starts on Feedback. I'm not about to do cliff notes on it for anyone who came late.

***********************

And for anyone who wants to know, yep, we're still talking about it.

mike65

Oh well...

Gary ITR

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

invincibleirish wrote: »

I understand GY was initially appointed by the senior people here to mod the SF to calm it down, but the flipside of it is that GY has caused more hassle then she's solved, the amount of feedback threads here about her and the demise of the OT thread are just two examples.

Seems to me admins are protecting their original 'good idea' of putting GY into the SF, even when it means banning long established SF posters on tenuous reasons.

The admins did not suggest that GY was made mod of soccer. That was me and once I had asked her if she was interested I went to the admins to get her added.

Admin conspiracy No. 267 - Quashed.

Fix your tags there. I thought you were saying that stuff

invincibleirish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

The admins did not suggest that GY was made mod of soccer. That was me and once I had asked her if she was interested I went to the admins to get her added.

Admin conspiracy No. 267 - Quashed.

Fair enough. How about the decline of the OT thread and GYs modding being unpopular amongst many of the SF regulars? thats a conspiracy as well?

copacetic

I'm really concerned that although we have numerous denials that there is any precedence here it seems that it is already becoming policy to check other sites to see what people are saying and then use that against them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60518363&postcount=7

I actually think it both cases it is probably the right call but really feel we need to be clearer about it, if only to actually prevent these things happening in the first place.

Beruthiel

invincibleirish wrote: »

Fair enough. How about the decline of the OT thread and GYs modding being unpopular amongst many of the SF regulars? thats a conspiracy as well?

We are NOT discussing GY in this thread.

My name is URL

Seems to me that it's simple 'look out for your own' mentality, can't argue with that really. But it's not nice to see posts from another forum being used to ban people here, especially when it seems to be at the request of or to protect one mod which many people agree is not good for the SF

javaboy

invincibleirish wrote: »

Fair enough. How about the decline of the OT thread and GYs modding being unpopular amongst many of the SF regulars? thats a conspiracy as well?

Come on. Discussing GY's moderating is only clouding the issue and it's not what this thread is about. If it helps, moderators who generally never offend or upset people have also been the subject of nasty abuse. So this isn't necessarily GY or even soccer forum specific. It could have been any other mod.

Spud83

invincibleirish wrote: »

Fair enough. How about the decline of the OT thread and GYs modding being unpopular amongst many of the SF regulars? thats a conspiracy as well?

You posted 5 times in the last OT thread out of 6093 posts I see no reason why you feel you have to bring it up.

Also the Off Topic thread is still alive, and if you are so worried abouts its decline try posting in it.

Gholimoli

I would like to start by saying that I have never been to the soccer forum ,don’t know GY ,don’t know Helix and not a member of the xpert11 thingy…infact prob only people on the poker forum know me.

Now to the case in point i genuinely have a couple of questions from the admins of boards.ie

1. If I see GY out on the street or even give her a ring and start abusing here, would I get banned from any forum on boards.ie ?(genuine question)
2. If the answer to question one is yes,then can i ask is there any current and clearly stated rule under which I should be banned?
3. suppose I met GY in a Boards.ie drinks and I told her that she was a ***** and told her what I thought of her (again this is just an example as I don’t even know her at all) and she made a compliant against me to the Admins,would that get me banned from the Soccer forum?

mayordenis

Can the admins meet some of us in the middle by actually just saying simply without any rhetoric that at the time he did not break a boards.ie rule?

also maybe address the point of what you consider a boards.ie affiliate - because that's cloudy at best.

invincibleirish

javaboy wrote: »

Come on. Discussing GY's moderating is only clouding the issue and it's not what this thread is about. If it helps, moderators who generally never offend or upset people have also been the subject of nasty abuse. So this isn't necessarily GY or even soccer forum specific. It could have been any other mod.

Why is GY been wrapped in cotton wool? this only tallies with the notion that she is being protected from on high. Whether the boards admins want to admit or not a significant section of the SFs regulars do not have confidence in GY as a mod, not because she's a women or whatever but because her over zealous approach has led to the situation we're in.

This relates to the issue being discussed here because quite clearly Helix and other soccer forum members share similar opinions about GY and have shared them elsewhere on the Internet as is their right. Now they are banned from here for expressing their opinions elsewhere which have been interpreted as abuse by some but have been considered tongue in cheek by those who actually play the game.

K-9

Was he specifically told to stop persisting with the PM's and Helpdesk threads or risk being perma banned?

Helix

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Anyone who has ever received an automated ban message will know that there's a footnote that states that responding negatively or abusively to a ban message may result in further punitive action being taken

i didnt recieve an automated ban message, i just recieved a pm from beruthiel

invincibleirish

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

You posted 5 times in the last OT thread out of 6093 posts I see no reason why you feel you have to bring it up.

Also the Off Topic thread is still alive, and if you are so worried abouts its decline try posting in it.

Who the funk cares how often i posted in it? i used it as an example,why did you feel it necessary to take the time to check when i posted in it?.

Daysha

K-9 wrote: »

Was he specifically told to stop persisting with the PM's and Helpdesk threads or risk being perma banned?

I'd also be interested in hearing the answer to this.

Helix

K-9 wrote: »

Was he specifically told to stop persisting with the PM's and Helpdesk threads or risk being perma banned?

no

Spud83

invincibleirish wrote: »

Who the funk cares how often i posted in it? i used it as an example,why did you feel it necessary to take the time to check when i posted in it?.

You didn't post in it so how do you know what caused the decline in it?

It took 15 seconds to check, and I only did that because I knew you barely posted in it, but wanted to back it up with exact numbers.

It smacks of you looking for a stick to try beat GY with.

Also I believe this thread is to discuss the ban giving to Helix, and the implications of said ban. The admins made the decision to ban not GY. Thats is why the moderation of GY is not being discussed here.

If you want to discuss GY moderation I suggest you start another thread, though I have no idea if it will be entertained.

Nevyn

5starpool wrote: »

I think the whole thing is a sorry mess. Helix was wrong in his actions imo, and he is wrong to not concede that what he did was wrong. I also think the admins are wrong in permbanning him (although some seem to say it is a tempban) from the soccer forum. I think it is also wrong to want him to admit what he did was wrong in order to receive a more lenient punishment.

If 2 wrongs do not make a right, then 4 wrongs most certainly don't, and I'm sure there are more wrongs involved that just those I have listed here.

If he doesn't think what he did is wrong then what will stop him doing it again?

If a poster gets bans and can then see how and were they were out of line and wont' be doing it again then that usually goes a long way with the mods/admins
to much so bans get lifted or reduced.

If they are all
Then even after the ban is up they are going to just be more trouble, more hassle and disruptive to the forums.

invincibleirish

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

You didn't post in it so how do you know what caused the decline in it?

It took 15 seconds to check, and I only did that because I knew you barely posted in it, but wanted to back it up with exact numbers.

It smacks of you looking for a stick to try beat GY with.

Also I believe this thread is to discuss the ban giving to Helix, and the implications of said ban. The admins made the decision to ban not GY. Thats why the moderation of GY is not being discussed.

Thats is why the moderation of GY is not being discussed here. If you want to discuss GY moderation I suggest you start another thread, though I have no idea if it will be netertained.

ok then my memory might be wrong but the OT thread died after a mod got the ban stick and there was hullabaloo here in feedback? if i'm wrong on that then feel free to correct me.

As demonstrated in my other posts and hinted at by various other posters on this forum the underlying issue on this is the lack of respect that a lot of users on the SF have for GY. This issue at hand is amplifying a long standing problem on the SF.

dr.bollocko

Jesus Fucking Christ.
A play by Dr. Bollocko:

Users: Oi admins, this guy is probably acting the douche, but can we not wait until he acts the douche on boards to ban him for acting the douche?

Admins: But.. eh.. he acted the douche.

Users: Yeah but not on boards so .. ehh... any chance of eh, you know, just waiting till he acts the douche on boards to ban him?

Admins: Nah... Im... it's ehh... Well.... You see it's not just offsite abuse.... and eh... well eh.... Look just no.

Users: Why?

Admins: Because.

Users: Is this horse dead yet? I'd better just keep hitting it just in case.

Fin.

We cannot hope to extend our remit to that which exists out of the world of boards.ie.

And that's it.

The ban kinda has to be lifted. It was the equivalent of a supreme court ruling in a small claims court. Mods, admins, users alike do not have the right to get even here for being slighted on another site. And Helix certainly doesn't deserve this level of support. That said GY was picked on and the admins felt that meritted action. And that is admirable. However in the absense of an X11 ruling it is nothing more than vigilante justice.

_blank_

Thaed, people CAN and WILL post what they "bloody well like" on other forums, non Boards.ie forums.

Boards.ie Admin, of course, have the right to ban anyone they like. For whatever reason.

But if content of posts on external websites is going to be the cause of bannings in the future, I really do think that is taking it a step too far.

As has been said, what DOES need clarification is this "affiliation" thing.

Are the Founders happy to have the Boards.ie name bandied around the internet?

If not, then they need to state that.

At the end of the day, we can bang on about "protecting out members/mods/users" or whatever that even means, but really and truly, this is a case of a person getting banned from a specific forum for typing things, hurtful things granted, about the mod of that specific forum, on an external, totally third party website.

If the Admin have such a problem of the name of Boards.ie being sullied, then perhaps they shouldn't allow the good name of Boards.ie to be used outside of here.

In my opinion, this episode, as handled by the Admins, makes Boards.ie look worse than what Helix did. A hundredfold.

NOT start banning people, in retrospect.

I'm not defending the actions of Helix here, but I do question the way it was handled by the Admin.

Doctor DooM

invincibleirish wrote: »

Why is GY been wrapped in cotton wool? this only tallies with the notion that she is being protected from on high. Whether the boards admins want to admit or not a significant section of the SFs regulars do not have confidence in GY as a mod, not because she's a women or whatever but because her over zealous approach has led to the situation we're in.

This relates to the issue being discussed here because quite clearly Helix and other soccer forum members share similar opinions about GY and have shared them elsewhere on the Internet as is their right. Now they are banned from here for expressing their opinions elsewhere which have been interpreted as abuse by some but have been considered tongue in cheek by those who actually play the game.

I know little about what's going on here but you're wandering into whats known on boards as the "mod conspiracy". It's a stereotypical argument often made by trolls et al.

There is a very important debate going on here and you are only weakening your own- potentially viable- arguments by continuing down this vein, IMO.

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote: »

If he doesn't think what he did is wrong then what will stop him doing it again?

The question is is it any business of the admins/mods of boards what he( or anyone else) does on sites not connected with this one.

Even assuming it is (which I don't think it is personally) what I don't understand is why he was banned from the SF, if it was for bullying then you would expect a site ban. But the soccer forum? The whole thing smacks of a rushed reaction and damage control.

Perhaps I'm missing something.