Mods and Jumping to conclusions

Mahatma coat

Right so I started a thread in CT
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633878

I did leave the OP deliberatley vague and I included 3 Youtubes whic make up a docco, I stated explicitley that people should Watch the Videos in FULL before they commented, some people however didnt, they proceeded to miss the point of the videos and then got stroppy about it.

only one person seemed to understand what the point of the exercise was and that was Watty.

the Moderation on the thread was atrocious, seems that the Ban was an afterthought I Checked in on the thread this morning and I find 2 conflicting Mod statements

6th wrote:

MC, this forum is not your personal playground. I suggest you make your point otherwise there is no reason to have this thread. Posters have pointed out their views on this video, it would be nice if you could do the same.

and then this

Purposely misleading the users of this forum is disrespectful and goes against the idea of community that we try to build here. Throwing your toys out of the pram just adds insult to injury.

Mahatma coat, banned for 1 month. The length of this ban is due to infraction/ban history.

so which is it to be??

also I cant see how I was purposely misleading people, its not my fault if people dont follow instructions, or is this a case of the mod being in the 'not getting it' camp and deciding to throw His toys out of the pram?


I really did think this could have been an interesting debate about the nature of the youtubery.

this is the bit that really pissed me off in the responses

There are no actual points raised in the film.

the statement of absolutes really fvckin annoys me, ie I didnt get it so therefore it dosent have any meaning, this demonstrates a complete unwillingness to enter into a discussion on balanced terms and generally leads to circular arguments and a lot of dragin threads off topic just so the poster can take digs.




course I now concede that I should have known better than to try and stimulate inteligent debate on the CT Forum, and I definitley shouldnt have tried to use Humor as a medium, because Humor ist Verboten as decreed by our goderator

WhiteWashMan

Since this is now less of an open complaint on feedback, and is now in helpdesk, can you restate what the issue is and what you are looking for?

Mahatma coat

Your rippin the piss, right??

Mahatma coat

Why move it from Feedback? If I wanted to start a Helpdesk thread I would have started a helpdesk thread and it would be a very different thread. I wanted to start a Feedback thread, I wanted to get some feedback from users as well as the usual circlin of the Wagons from themods.

I see that Nyarlo had a thread moved to Helpdesk too, I would have liked to give some Feedback on that thread too.

or am I right in my initial assesment?

WhiteWashMan

I dont know, I didnt move it.

If you dont want a helpdesk thread, then I will close it if you want?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I did leave the OP deliberatley vague and I included 3 Youtubes whic make up a docco, I stated explicitley that people should Watch the Videos in FULL before they commented, some people however didnt, they proceeded to miss the point of the videos and then got stroppy about it.

I'm looking for the first sign of someone getting stroppy.

Post 2 - KM comments on the content.
Post 3 - KM comments - complete with smiley - that he's just realised he's been 'had'
Post 4 - You pos about KM proving some undefined point being proven and that he should watch the whole video.
Post 5 - KM confirms that he has watched it all
Post 6 - YOu ask him a question, suggesting that you want serious discussion about serious points raised in the videos
Post 7 - KM asks you to confirm whether or not you realise what he admitted to in post 3 - that the videos are a mockumentary.
Post 8 - You post about KM having "woefully missed my point and I couldn't be arsed trying to explain it to you".
Post 9 - KM points out that they acknowledged being caught out, that they have watched the film, and asks you to explain your standpoint.
Post 10 - You "give up".

I'm trying to find where someone gets stroppy before post 8 (you) and post 10 (you, again).

only one person seemed to understand what the point of the exercise was and that was Watty.

Watty's first comment on the subject was: "Lets have some honesty and integrity".

It seems to me that watty was suggesting that posting the videos without clarifying their nature lacked honesty and integrity.
If he was the only person to understand the point, I'm not sure that's all that flattering.

Not only that, but Watty's post was to supply the information that you didn't supply...the clarification that it was a spoof video.
If watty understood your point (concealing that it was a spoof), it was a point he clearly didn't agree with, seeing as his post pretty-much undermined the whole idea.

the Moderation on the thread was atrocious, seems that the Ban was an afterthought

I haven't discussed the point with 6th, but my guess is that that 6th did reconsider his position.

also I cant see how I was purposely misleading people,

You said in-thread that the person who got taken in by the videos proved your point.

You've said here that the person who suggested honesty and integrity was lacking in the thread understood your point.

Now you seem to be saying that it wasn't your intention to lead people to believe that this was a serious documentary until they got to the end and discovered it wasn't one.

I really did think this could have been an interesting debate about the nature of the youtubery.
...
I now concede that I should have known better than to try and stimulate inteligent debate on the CT Forum, and I definitley shouldnt have tried to use Humor as a medium, because Humor ist Verboten as decreed by our goderator

[/quote]
With respect, there's no hint of humour in post 1.
As soon as someone admits to falling for it, they certainly don't get a humorous reply.
If post 6 was intended to add to the light-heartedness and humour, it could only do so by being a deadpan-serious comment which could - after everything worked out nicely - be seen to be keeping up the charade...but that would only be humorous if you ewre trying to mislead people into thinking it was a serious documentary, which you deny.
In post 8, you were having a go at another poster who by their own admission got taken in initially, then watched the video to the end and wanted to discuss it with you.
In post 9, they gave you exactly teh opening you needed to start a discussion about why it was hte sublime piece of programming you claimed it to be....and your response was to give up in post 10.

I find it disingenuous to suggest that you wanted a light-hearted and humourous path to intelligent debate when the very first person to engage you in the thread received nothing but scorn and abuse....and when they then asked you to explain your position, you gave up in digust rather than start the actual debate.

6th

Yep, my first post was off the ball. I reread the thread and saw that you were purposely misleading the users of the forum and then having a hissy fit if they didnt follow your instructions.

That wont be tolerated. Ban stands though I apologise for the initial misunderstanding.

Mahatma coat

how exactly was it Purposley Misleading??

my OP clearly stated a few times tha the video had to be watched in full,

and the point I was thankin mob for making on my behalf is that even when posters are given clear instructions at the beginning of a thread, such as watch this video in full, some will still chose to ignore it and row in all guns blazing,

I suppose if a diferent poster had responded my replys would have been slightly different, I had no intention of misleading the members, which is why I kept saying watch it in FULL before commenting, there could have been an interesting debate about the techniques employed, instead we have Mob pointing out that its a spoof hence ruining the whole premis, simply because he felt foolish IMO.

Watty did seem to get it and understand the point I was making, at the same time I found his calls for honesty and integrity a bit off, but his comments on what the docco were are spot on.

so would one of the Mods like to explain to me where I Purposley Misled People.

WhiteWashMan

6th wrote: »

I reread the thread and saw that you were purposely misleading the users of the forum

Sorry, I just dont see that either.


In fact, giving a specific set of instructions, but with very little actual information on what was about to be viewed would appear to me to be right up the CT alley IMO.

bonkey

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

In fact, giving a specific set of instructions, but with very little actual information on what was about to be viewed would appear to me to be right up the CT alley IMO.

To a certain degree, perhaps.

There has been friction recently between people who've refused to discuss something with people who haven't watched something in its entirety, and people who've watched a small amount and seen nothing to convince them that its worth watching to its entirety.

In the interests of promoting discussion, I'm not a fan of insisting that someone watch something to the end before being willing to discuss any aspect of it with them. That said, its not against the rules to make such a request. Indeed, if it was something that MC wanted enforced, I'd have preferred that he discuss it with us beforehand. In the "opinions" thread, I've suggested exactly such an approach recently....that people could start threads with "preconditions" which we would enforce for them. I asked that people contact me with suggestions for a trial run, and to date have received none.

So, on one hand, I'd agree that MC made it clear that people should watch the video to the end, so I can understand the frustration that Mob didn't do that before posting. On the other hand, the moderators weren't asked to enforce it, and I certainly wouldn't support the notion of posters "pseudo-moderating" their own thread...so I'd be of the stance that Mob had every right to post what he did and that if MC had a problem with it, he shoul dhave talked to us - the moderators.

This didn't happen, and I'm mostly at a loss to explain what did.

I'm not sure I'd agree with 6th's wording either...that MC set about to deliberately mislead people. I do find his behaviour on the thread to be unacceptable and mostly inexplicable. On its own, its certainly not worth a month's ban...but the month's ban (as stated in-thread) doesn't come from just this incident.

WhiteWashMan

TO be fair, if someone wants to post up whatever, then as long as it is within the bounds of the forum, why would there be an issue?

Now, you cant make anyone watch an entire series of videos, and the thread starter can only suggest that to get the benefit of something that someomne watch all of them, but no one can make anyone do anything.

After that, I am really unsure what the point is of banning someone just becuase some people didnt get the full experience as the OP would have wanted it.


On one hand, throwing your toys out of the pram becuase someone didnt follow full instructions is childish.
On the other, I am unsure really why the ban was handed out personally.

With regards other incidents, I suggest in future you deal with each indident on its merits. You cannot hand out 1 month bans for something that deserves a smack on the wrist at most, just becuase 'other stuff happened'.

Id suggest yourself and 6th have a chat, and I suggest MC learns that people dont always do what he wants.



In other words, sort it out.

bonkey

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

With regards other incidents, I suggest in future you deal with each indident on its merits. You cannot hand out 1 month bans for something that deserves a smack on the wrist at most, just becuase 'other stuff happened'.

The CT forum uses a "repeat offence" sliding scale, whereby people who are getting frequent moderation get progressively longer bans.

My understanding was that this was a practice already in place in other forums and was nothing exceptional.

If its incorrect, then we should absolutely review the charter of the forum accordingly.

AFAIK, there is one other long-running ban resulting from this policy. If review this policy, then I would suggest that we review/lift that ban to be in accordance with whatever new policy we implement.

Id suggest yourself and 6th have a chat, and I suggest MC learns that people dont always do what he wants.

In other words, sort it out.

Fair enough.

I'm snowed under with work until sometime next week...and I'm away this weekend. I've only just-about managed to find time to keep up with this thread so far, and don't think I'll have time to keep doing so before next week.

Consequently, I don't think its fair to MC that his ban would remain standing until the CT mods manage to find time to talk this through.

If 6th doesn't object, my suggestion is that MC's ban be lifted until we have discussed things, and if a shorter ban (or an infraction) is deemed to be more correct following whatever we discuss, we apply it at that point.

6th

Mahatma coat did appear to be be moderating his own thread (though just because someone starts a thread it doest make it theirs) and that was a large part of the problem. It appeared he wanted people to either follow his rules or stay out of the thread. When posters didnt he had a tantrum.

On review though I've reduced the ban to 2 weeks.

WhiteWashMan

bonkey wrote: »

The CT forum uses a "repeat offence" sliding scale, whereby people who are getting frequent moderation get progressively longer bans.

Thats pretty much what most fora do, but thats not what I am reading from your last post.

I am reading, 'MC has annoyed us a few times, and this is the straw that broke the camels back, so we have just thrown a massive ban at him'.

If its the first, then fine, if its the second, then thats not how it should work.

6th wrote:

Mahatma coat did appear to be be moderating his own thread (though just because someone starts a thread it doest make it theirs) and that was a large part of the problem.

Sorry, I thought the problem was that he was purposefully misdirecting the users?

As far as I am aware, Mc cannot moderate anything in the forum as he is neither a moderator nor an Admin.

6th wrote:

It appeared he wanted people to either follow his rules or stay out of the thread.

And to be honest, I dont have a problem with that. I am completely unsure why you would moderate that. Ive seen people banned form the forum for not keeping on thread, and yet here you are banning someone for doing exactly that! Which is it?

6th wrote:

When posters didnt he had a tantrum.

And everyone can see that it is childish and stupid.

Ban reduced to 2 weeks at the moderators decision.