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

Why do the Smods and mods, KEEP CONSISTINGLY AVOID THE C.T ISSUE.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    well then why are the skeptics being pandered to and not the cters?

    They aren't . Go compile a list of infractions handed out even in the last week. Also look at the amount of times I have had posts thanked by "CTers" when modding "skeptics".


  • Options
    #33
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    well then why are the skeptics being pandered to and not the cters?

    You need people of opposing views or those with different ideas to your own to have debate, if everyone was of the same opinion you would end up with a circlejerk like what many accuse Feedback of being

    If you don't want debate and instead want discussion of just likeminded people then as has been suggested before a private forum may be more useful

    Examples of where Skeptics are being pandered to more than CT'ers might help your case
    humanji wrote: »
    Where are they being pandered to?

    My question would be where is bias being shown against CT'ers?


  • Options
    #34
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,740 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sparks wrote: »
    How can you be a "pro-CT" mod? Or is the CT forum limited by charter to one particular CT?

    No. Most theorists believe most theories. Most skeptics don't. There are some skeptics who believe certain CTs, there are some theorists who don't believe some CTs.

    A pro-CT mod would be one who also believes most CTs


  • Options
    #35
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    humanji wrote: »
    Where are they being pandered to?

    By the very absence of a ct mod out of fear that they might be offended


  • Options
    #36
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    Popey wrote: »
    You need people of opposing views or those with different ideas to your own to have debate, if everyone was of the same opinion you would end up with a circlejerk like what many accuse Feedback of being

    If you don't want debate and instead want discussion of just likeminded people then as has been suggested before a private forum may be more useful

    Examples of where Skeptics are being pandered to more than CT'ers might help your case



    My question would be where is bias being shown against CT'ers?

    Debate is a healthy component of the forum. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that having a ct mod would make things more equal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    For the record many would concider me a CT mod.

    The CTers dont like me, the Skeptics dont like me. Thats balance if ever I saw it!


  • Options
    #38
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    A pro-CT mod would be one who also believes most CTs
    But don't most CTs contradict one another? I mean, Kennedy can't have been shot by the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, trained US Army snipers and the mob...


  • Options
    #39
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    By the very absence of a ct mod out of fear that they might be offended
    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Debate is a healthy component of the forum. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that having a ct mod would make things more equal.

    Or maybe the current situation is down to the last CT'er Mod not working out too well, not tarring all user with the same brush here just pointing out that there has been a CT'er mod in the past

    Also where are things not equal, examples are needed if you want to get your point across


  • Options
    #40
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    For the record Mysterious clearly just doesnt want to follow any rules, 17 infractions on Boards so far.


  • Options
    #41
    4zn76tysfajdxp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    6th wrote: »
    The CTers dont like me, the Skeptics dont like me. Thats balance if ever I saw it!

    I love you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    You broke the rules mysterious. I know because I was getting annoyed by it. You repeatedly argued with moderators in thread, both 6th and bonkey. You repeatedly made posts which did not belong on a conspiracy forum, and you were continuously making the natives restless. All this after just coming back from a month-long ban.

    I can't believe you are still arguing about this. Your argument hasn't changed since you first started any of this, and all those points have repeatedly been discussed. The mods and admins are not going to change their minds. Not because there is a conspiracy. But because you are wrong. Plain and simple. Deal with it.

    No i didn't:) How could I with a 6th month ban. I didnt get warning's and I never got infracted I got the direct ban from been attacked in the first place.. People were attacking me, I didn't break the rules. You got annoyed with me, because you dissagree with my views, I know this because you insulted me a few times... oh and you never got banned.

    I can see why your defending 6th behaviour. I didn't argue with Bonkey, Infact I rarely got any attacks by Bonkey considering I was on there long before 6th arrived onto the scene. When Bonkey made the rules aware he said to all people and not have a biased attack against me.

    Now leave it as that.

    My issue is the unbalance on C.T.    .. The mods and admins are going to have to start taking note of this, afterall we are the users of boards, who create the traffic on the forum. Many people are not satisfied with it, I dont understand why the Admnis are ignoring this.

    You have two skeptic mods. We need one mod for each side for better balance and less one sided on the board.


  • Options
    #43
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,740 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sparks wrote: »
    But don't most CTs contradict one another? I mean, Kennedy can't have been shot by the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, trained US Army snipers and the mob...

    Precisely my point. For example, they might point out something which goes against the official report and suggests that the Secret Service were in on it. Then they might point out another flaw in the official report that suggests Jewish people did it. Most theorists see some flaws in an official report and become interested in it, even if those flaws contradict each other.

    Of course, this is just going by my own experiences and opinions of that board.

    And back on topic, I don't think a 3rd mod, Pro-CT or anti-CT mod, is needed. As someone who regularly reads that board, I think Bonkey and 6th do a great job. And I'm saying this as a skeptic who has been banned by Bonkey and given a warning by 6th in the past.


  • Options
    #44
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    6th wrote: »
    For the record Mysterious clearly just doesnt want to follow any rules, 17 infractions on Boards so far.

    Most of them were from you:rolleyes: how many years have I been on here.


  • Options
    #45
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    mysterious wrote: »

    My issue is the unbalance on C.T.    .. The mods and admins are going to have to start taking note of this, afterall we are the users of boards, who create the traffic on the forum. Many people are not satisfied with it, I dont understand why the Admnis are ignoring this.
    Because nobody else really seems to think this is a problem. One person with an issue is not a reason to enact change.

    By all accounts, I would consider 6th to be on the left-hand side of irrational, and bonkey has a mind more open than Jordan's legs.

    You couldn't really get two more accomodating moderators for that forum IMO.


  • Options
    #46
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    mysterious wrote: »
    Most of them were from you:rolleyes: how many years have I been on here.

    Actually would you be surprised to know that of your 17 infractions that only 3 are from me?


  • Options
    #47
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    seamus wrote: »
    I would consider 6th to be on the left-hand side of irrational

    Thank you?


  • Options
    #48
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,740 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    mysterious wrote: »
    No i didn't:) How could with a 6th month ban. You got annoyed with me, cus you dissagree with my views, I know this because you insulted me a few times...

    I can see why your defending 6th behaviour. I didn't argue with Bonkey, Infact I rarely got any attacks by Bonkey considering I was on there long before 6th arrived onto the scene. When Bonkey made the rules aware he said to all people and not have a biased attack against me.

    Now leave it as that.

    My issue is the unbalance on C.T... The mods and admins are going to have to start taking note of this, afterall we are the users of boards, who create the traffic on the forum. Many people are not satisfied with it, I dont understand why the Admnis are ignoring this.

    You have two skeptic mods. We need one mod for each side for better balance and less one sided on the board.

    You did argue with Bonkey. You were arguing with another poster about the fact that you edited your post, while you were claiming that you didn't. Bonkey said he could see the original message as a mod and said you had edited it. You repeatedly said you didn't. I don't have time to look for the thread now, but I'll try find it later. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I remember seeing something like that.

    Yes, I did insult you a few times, and got duly punished for doing so. Because the mods are fair. But I never once insulted you because I disagree with your views.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "No i didn't:) How could with a 6th month ban." I'm talking about rules you broke which caused the 6 month ban.


  • Options
    #49
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Popey wrote: »
    You need people of opposing views or those with different ideas to your own to have debate, if everyone was of the same opinion you would end up with a circlejerk like what many accuse Feedback of being

    If you don't want debate and instead want discussion of just likeminded people then as has been suggested before a private forum may be more useful

    Examples of where Skeptics are being pandered to more than CT'ers might help your case



    My question would be where is bias being shown against CT'ers?

    No the problem is

    Skeptics can hurl abuse and get championed by their views because the mods are also skeptics, meaning that they willl always back them up all the time.

    The C.T and posters on the other side are left out to dry. If the C.T dissagrees with the skeptic mods, it can easily put the C.T cornered. The SKeptic mods dont see the problem with skeptics attacking the C.Ts. But when C.Ts attacks the skeptic, its goes horribly wrong.

    I would be happy if there were a skeptic mod and C.T mod. Put the black and white on it, not the two of the one colour.

    Why is this so hard for people to understand... 3 pages later...


  • Options
    #50
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    You did argue with Bonkey. You were arguing with another poster about the fact that you edited your post, while you were claiming that you didn't. Bonkey said he could see the original message as a mod and said you had edited it. You repeatedly said you didn't. I don't have time to look for the thread now, but I'll try find it later. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I remember seeing something like that.

    Yes, I did insult you a few times, and got duly punished for doing so. Because the mods are fair. But I never once insulted you because I disagree with your views.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "No i didn't:) How could with a 6th month ban." I'm talking about rules you broke which caused the 6 month ban.
    Create a helpdesk thread about it I will be more than happy to debate it ther:)


  • Options
    #51
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    6th wrote: »
    Actually would you be surprised to know that of your 17 infractions that only 3 are from me?

    Cus you like banning..

    And your new, and since I'm hardly even on C.Ts since you've been on the show, its surely something you like to do keep me off it, But of course Diogenes and meglome have more infractions on me for saying FAR WORSE things to me personally such as insulting my deaceased grandfather. I ve never thrown a personal insult of this nature about anyone on that forum, and you made the personal banning on me just like all the other posters have said. 6th we will create a helpdesk thread about it.

    So instead of defendning your irrational behaviour we will take that too helpdesk.

    I want this topic sorted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    But you said most of your infractions were from me .... are you going to correct that false statement?


  • Options
    #53
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    seamus wrote: »
    Because nobody else really seems to think this is a problem. One person with an issue is not a reason to enact change.

    By all accounts, I would consider 6th to be on the left-hand side of irrational, and bonkey has a mind more open than Jordan's legs.

    You couldn't really get two more accomodating moderators for that forum IMO.

    Okay then have one skeptic mod and One C.t mods, sounds logical to me.


    Btw maybe they havent seen this thread yet.
    I'll email them, ;)

    I really think alot of people seriously have an issue with awareness. I'm amazed that the admins and mods cant see what is needed here.


  • Options
    #54
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,740 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    mysterious wrote: »
    Create a helpdesk thread about it I will be more than happy to debate it ther:)

    If I posted a helpdesk thread, you wouldn't be able to post in it. Only the OP and Admins can. Besides, I'm not sure we have anything to discuss. I've apologised for the mistakes I've made in the past. You haven't acknowledged yours.


  • Options
    #55
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    6th wrote: »
    But you said most of your infractions were from me .... are you going to correct that false statement?

    We will dicuss this in helpdesk. do you understand?


  • Options
    #56
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    mysterious wrote: »
    We will dicuss this in helpdesk. do you understand?

    lol


  • Options
    #57
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    mysterious wrote: »
    No the problem is

    Skeptics can hurl abuse and get championed by their views because the mods are also skeptics, meaning that they willl always back them up all the time.

    The C.T and posters on the other side are left out to dry. If the C.T dissagrees with the skeptic mods, it can easily put the C.T cornered. The SKeptic mods dont see the problem with skeptics attacking the C.Ts. But when C.Ts attacks the skeptic, its goes horribly wrong.

    I would be happy if there were a skeptic mod and C.T mod. Put the black and white on it, not the two of the one colour.

    Why is this so hard for people to understand... 3 pages later...

    If someone causes trouble the mods take care of them. Skeptics can't hurl abuse freely at anyone.

    And a CT can argue with a mod all they want as long as it's on topic and they don't break any rules. But arguing about mod decisions isn't allowed as is refusal to get back on topic when told several times.

    It's also been said many times before that a mods opinion on a topic has nothing to do with their modding. If you feel it does, then you bring it to somebodies attention with evidence.


  • Options
    #58
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    mysterious wrote: »
    No the problem is

    Skeptics can hurl abuse and get championed by their views because the mods are also skeptics, meaning that they willl always back them up all the time.

    The C.T and posters on the other side are left out to dry. If the C.T dissagrees with the skeptic mods, it can easily put the C.T cornered. The SKeptic mods dont see the problem with skeptics attacking the C.Ts. But when C.Ts attacks the skeptic, its goes horribly wrong.

    I would be happy if there were a skeptic mod and C.T mod. Put the black and white on it, not the two of the one colour.

    Why is this so hard for people to understand... 3 pages later...

    Do you not think it might have more to do with the level of attack than the Mods being biased, that the CT people react just a little bit too much to being questioned?

    Just because a Mod is skeptic does not mean they will side with other skeptics, just as not all Ct'ers agree and side with other CT'ers

    The Mods apply the rules according to the charter, their personal beliefs are irrelevant, so there is no reason why there could not be a Pro CT mod in place but it should not make a difference to the modding


  • Options
    #59
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Am I allowed to bring evidence on here, or do I need to separate this topic, for once Im not trying to bring my case into this...

    I do want to see the unbalance sorted, and this is more important than my case, cus even if my case was resolved, 6th would ban me again as alot of posters have said. He seems to ignore my complaints. but when im attacked and hurled abuse by 4/5 posters saying the most disgusting things. I would then get a ban for saying they were off topic or narrow minded. when in actual fact they were and in their accusation of me calling me all sorts of names.

    This is the reality. How many posters have complained about my unfair treatment, are you the only one who cant see it.


  • Options
    #60
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Popey wrote: »
    Do you not think it might have more to do with the level of attack than the Mods being biased, that the CT people react just a little bit too much to being questioned?

    Just because a Mod is skeptic does not mean they will side with other skeptics, just as not all Ct'ers agree and side with other CT'ers

    The Mods apply the rules according to the charter, their personal beliefs are irrelevant, so there is no reason why there could not be a Pro CT mod in place but it should not make a difference to the modding

    Well infairness, Since it was Bonkey and Matamatma there was alot of great banter on the forums. You had both sides willing to put there passion into their views and even if it got heated, no side was left feeling on the edge. Bonkey is a skeptic, and I respect that, I feel he is by far more knowledgeable on this than 6th is, and that is my opinion. Alot of people view's 6th contribution as a sidekick joke. You can all dissagree with me on that ive no beef with that.

    But now that we have Two skeptic mods, one who is we dont need to go into :rolleyes: Is just creating alot of tension. even if 6th wasn't behaving like a goderator I still view the forum as slightly off balance with having two skeptic mods, since its seems obvious that after so many thread and complaints on feedback and helpdesk in the way the C.T forum is going, people are not happy. Some people were even asked to be banned because they were sick of the Skeptics side of things leaving them no choice but to be undermined One C.T got banned for defending my unfair banning.

    There is far to much unbalance. I'm asking for some kind of solution, and i'm very annoyed that adults here cant even come to a solution.

    Popey look at how 6th reacted to me? Would this answer your questioning in the above?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Nerin
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    This is no longer a feedback.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement