Future of boards.ie debate stuff..

randylonghorn

oscarBravo wrote: »

And user reps won't be users just like everyone else, any more than David Begg is a worker just like everyone else.

Wibbs wrote: »

with respect, silly evasive argument TBH and linear black and white thinking to boot. They would be a lot more like everyone else. Certainly more than admins or mods. Good check and balance for the numpties too. On all sides.

I find myself saying hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Wibbs!

User reps are a good idea in principle. Depending on the users chosen, it might even work out extremely well in practice.

But coming back to Oscar's point I've had to deal with enough unions to know that union reps often become out of touch very quickly with the people they represent.

They can get hung up on a few points of "principle" regardless of what the reality on the ground is or what their constituents actually feel, and we've seen a few examples of that in the last year or two in particular since the recession kicked in.

On the other hand, sometimes they spend so much time dealing with management that they become colonised by management thinking ... worker directors are especially prone to this.

Funnily enough, much the same can happen in the departmental civil service, and units which are supposed to deal with certain sectors on behalf of government end up representing their "clients" to government!

Anyway, coming back to boards ... I'm not saying that would happen here, I would hope not, but I can see where Oscar is coming from.

And I do also have a strong sense that if moderators aren't user reps, then we're failing.

5starpool

I don't 'get' these suggestions for user reps. What would they rep the users in exactly? How would they provide insight for the vast majority who likely post in only 1 or 2 forums? Where would these bastions of reasonable representation for the oppressed masses, who are willing to spare the time to do this, but have never been (presumably) asked to be a mod, going to be drawn from? The reason I am surmising that they probably were never asked to be a mod is that if they were willing to spare time/energy to do this demanding sounding role, chances are they would have accepted a mod position if offered.

Sorry for the cynicism, but it seems like an unrealistic and unworkable solution to a problem that does not exist. They would basically have to be trusted with the power of an admin in order to do the role that has been suggested, and to trust someone from going from normal user to admin not to use any of their new 'features' is a bit of a jump really, never mind the fact that defining a mandate for this role would be a contentious impossible job to give boundaries to.

My name is URL

Couldn't an automated Digg-like system for site issues be used to escalate the concerns with the highest priority to admins?

And it would be a community based system, rather than a mere fallible & transient mortal

dr.bollocko

It would be pretty interesting if there were a team of user reps voted in by posters that would have the authority to reply on helpdesk threads etc. Obv. they'd need to take it seriously and you'd need to change up the posters very regularly but it would add some vitality to HD and the current user complaint system that could be beneficial for everyone.

Earthhorse

randylonghorn wrote: »

But coming back to Oscar's point I've had to deal with enough unions to know that union reps often become out of touch very quickly with the people they represent.

Ah right, that's the point he was making. It's a real danger alright but hopefully one that wouldn't arise as you say. I don't think user reps should stay in the role for too long either. A year, maybe two, then step down.

5starpool wrote: »

I don't 'get' these suggestions for user reps.

In case you missed the background it came to me in the middle of reading the Administrators thread in Feedback with an increasing sense of beleaguerment at the idea that more admins were needed. I know a few have stepped down recently but we have two full time Community Managers in place (no idea how much the two roles overlap) and I don't think more of the same is what's needed. The new admin team should be given time to settle at least.

I've been using this site seven years and it's never been more confusing to me where to take an issue. I know the admins are said to speak as one but it seems to me to be pot luck which particular one you might deal with and they can be vastly different in their approach to resolving problems.

What would they rep the users in exactly?

Issues of sensitivity that can't be discussed publicly, hence are difficult to garner input and support on. Issues where posts have been deleted and the user will find it difficult to evidence his case.

How would they provide insight for the vast majority who likely post in only 1 or 2 forums?

They wouldn't. They would only represent users on a case by case basis.

The reason I am surmising that they probably were never asked to be a mod is that if they were willing to spare time/energy to do this demanding sounding role, chances are they would have accepted a mod position if offered.

That's a shortcoming alright and perhaps no one will be found. I can think of a few users who are not mods (and to my knowledge never have been) who have been using the site a number of years and whom I consider reasonable. Whether they have been offered a modship or not is not known to me.

Sorry for the cynicism, but it seems like an unrealistic and unworkable solution to a problem that does not exist.

I disagree that the problem does not exist though I do think only a handful will ever encounter it. That doesn't mean it's not an important problem to solve.

They would basically have to be trusted with the power of an admin in order to do the role that has been suggested, and to trust someone from going from normal user to admin not to use any of their new 'features' is a bit of a jump really, never mind the fact that defining a mandate for this role would be a contentious impossible job to give boundaries to.

I don't know that they would have to be trusted with the power of an admin but certainly with more power than an ordinary user. I don't think it would be impossible to to give boundaries to the job either.

Another suggestion I've had in the past would be to have a sort of private Feedback where interested parties can discuss sensitive issues. The idea being that people can address issues that concern them without fear of having their thread derailed or hi-jacked. The suggestion met with some positive Feedback (from DeVore, I believe) though I think someone had made it before anyway. Can't find it now as search is down but I described it much better when I first put it forward.

That might be a more workable solution which would address a lot of the same concerns.

Wibbs

randylonghorn wrote: »

And I do also have a strong sense that if moderators aren't user reps, then we're failing.

That was my original contention too.

If there does exist a problem and I'm not sure there does, then maybe all users vote for an existing mod to be the user rep, with an atari jaguar option for "other"? We have community managers, admins, cmods, mods blah blah, so why not a user rep that people feel has their side. making them an existing mod would keep the status quo somewhat happy. Rotate them too. Stops or reduces hubris

*edit* I don't see how they would be getting admin "powers" either.

5starpool

If it is aimed at another voice in helpdesk type issues then I can see where this would come in, however the final word would necessarily be with the admins in all cases, even if it is just the power to overrule if/when necessary. However, the ability to search through deleted posts in all forums is, I believe, only available to admins, and I don't know if it is technically possible to give this power to people without all the other stuff associated with being an admin. It may be possible to do this by creating a new user group and adding all post editing/viewing as a skill in this group, but I don't know how vbulletin is set up, so can't really comment.

There still remains the question of admins granting this type of power to a committee of a few (whether static or rotating) even if it is possible.

I had initially thought that part of the aim of these new user reps would be to have a say in the stuff that admins decide for the site before it was rolled out to everyone, but I don't think that would be workable at all. Since it seems that this would not be a function of the role then there would be less of an issue with it I'd imagine, but I till think the viewing of all deleted posts is an obstacle to this.

copacetic

User reps are a good idea, it is a bit difficult to see how to make it work smoothly. Most regular longer term users in good standing will likely have been mods at some stage. Outside of this grouping it would be hard to find level heads to do such a job with the impartiality it deserves.

However it's well worth a try, I've no doubt that the helpdesk and feedback system is heavily biased in favour of moderators. It's not by design, it's a natural result of having a big team of volunteers giving their heart and soul to keeping their forums running smoothly. The admins realise this and having all been moderators know the daily crap they have to deal with. Then every time there is a judgement call they go with the mod. In fact even when there has been clearly some dodgy moderation they'll still back the mods up, at least in public. Maybe thats the only way to stop a bigger turnover in mods, but we should at least try something different.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hang on you are giving out about mods abusing the trust put in them by disclosing thread from the mods forum in irc and that you think that is disgraceful but you are willing to turn around and say that someone has been feeding you info from that same forum and not shop them cos it suits you.

I find that galling, hypercritcal and dishonourable and I would apply the same terms to the action of anyone who'd breach the trust placed in them as mods.

I don't see how you expect anyone do deal with you honourably and honestly when your not doing the same.

Its late, I'm tired and going to bed. Anyone else wouldn't get a reply at this time so take that into account. You show we where I betrayed a trust placed in we? Where I've divulged information about a private forum. In my rule book, yes mine, not yours our anyone else's, when you use a medium outside of boards to plan an execuse attacks on me inside boards you loose the right to hide behind moderators privilege. I've broken no word or honour and I find the accusation offensive.

I love the way you jumped to the conclusion that its someone leaking informations to me rather then someone bragging about how they've fuked me over. But this is the last i'll post on this issue.

I'll reply to the rest in the morning.

randylonghorn

Wibbs wrote: »

That was my original contention too.

I know, I was agreeing with you.

randylonghorn

Boston wrote: »

I love the way you jumped to the conclusion that its someone leaking informations to me rather then someone bragging about how they've fuked me over.

Assuming for a moment that that is accurate, Boston, you might need to consider that they're actually baiting you / winding you up / fvcking you over as much in what they're enticing you to believe and to react to, as in anything they may have said or done previously and are bragging about.

copacetic

Boston wrote: »

Just a quick reply to this.

Give me access to the moderator forum and the ability to see deleted post and I will know the truth of it. On the last thread relating to me on that forum a moderator suggested that the management search my private message. The response was that it was an option you guys were considering, that it would have to be ross or conor and that it was difficult.

You know exactly the topic I'm referring to, you replied several times to it in relation to my lack of worth, yet you pretend otherwise. what the ****. Someone says "Hey you should search that guys private messages" the response should be "No way would we ever do that without a court order." It should not be "It's an option". You prove to me I have things arseways and I'll apologise, I'll even fall on my sword and depart from boards for the misscalulation. I've said all I'm going to say on this issue. There's a pm function.

Anyway, this nonsense is off-topic. I'll ask you again not to mess up the thread

Thats rubbish, I'd not consider myself a company man and having read that topic in realtime you've been misfed and totally misled about what was said and who said it.

Sharpshooter

Can I ask how Boston can post as to what he thinks is said in the Moderators Forum?

I am asking only because I am confused as to how he would be privy to any information in there?

Boston, don't get me wrong, it is confusing me as to how you know what you post is real information.

I hope you understand my query.

copacetic

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Can I ask how Boston can post as to what he thinks is said in the Moderators Forum?

I am asking only because I am confused as to how he would be privy to any information in there?

Boston, don't get me wrong, it is confusing me as to how you know what you post is real information.

I hope you understand my query.

He can post whatever he wants, nothing to say someone can't post what they were told. If someone with actual access to a private forum did the same they would likely lose that access most ricky tick. If anyone has done anything wrong it's whoever is feeding information from a private forum. In this case it appears they have been using vaguely accurate framing of false data to make a fool of him.

Boston

Earthhorse wrote: »

I am simply admitting the bias. It needn't be a strong one. In a 50/50 scenario the user rep will side with the user. They are advocates for them. There is bias in everyone and in all systems. It's better to admit this than pretend it isn't so.

Nothing inherently wrong with being bias once every lays their cards out on the table at the start. The problems arise when bias people pretend to be otherwise.

Earthhorse wrote: »

It shouldn't matter. If someone makes a suggestion that would benefit all users based on their own private gain then it's still a good suggestion for the community. Their motivation in suggesting it is irrelevant. Any idea should be allowed stand or fall based on it's merit; based on it's likely benefit and cost to the community. I have no idea how you would divine anyone's motivation in any event.

Can something good come out of bad motivations or will the negativity of that initial reasoning taint things. In an idealised world motives dont matter, but in any system operated by real people with real emotions, motivations can never be truly ignored.

Earthhorse wrote: »

So does the existence of boards.

Good reply.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Although you've addressed this to Boston it overlaps with a lot of my argument. I disagree that admins are users, "just like everyone else". They have an entirely different experience of boards than plain, vanilla users and I've outlined the reasons I believe that in my third post on this thread. And one of the things they are so critically missing is the experience of being a plain, vanilla user outside the loop of, well, pretty much everything.

I've also outlined the reasons why I support this premise earlier on in the thread. Administrators arn't regular users. I've yet to see one claim to be either. Look at the community managers, each has a boards account, each has a staff account. If you could really separate things by using bold text then this wouldn't be needed.

Earthhorse wrote: »

That level of candidacy is admirable and something which is all too lacking on boards for my money.

People have feelings. Despite what some try to convince themselves of we're not all just a collection of persons detached from the person behind the keyboard. When someone says "I hate you" that has real impact. When someone says "You're ok I little you" that has real impact. We're not robots. Saying to an administrator I think your useless and hope to see the back of you someday isn't going to win you an favours nor help the successful flow of debate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And user reps won't be users just like everyone else, any more than David Begg is a worker just like everyone else.

randylonghorn wrote: »

I find myself saying hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Wibbs!

User reps are a good idea in principle. Depending on the users chosen, it might even work out extremely well in practice.

But coming back to Oscar's point I've had to deal with enough unions to know that union reps often become out of touch very quickly with the people they represent.

They can get hung up on a few points of "principle" regardless of what the reality on the ground is or what their constituents actually feel, and we've seen a few examples of that in the last year or two in particular since the recession kicked in.

On the other hand, sometimes they spend so much time dealing with management that they become colonised by management thinking ... worker directors are especially prone to this.

Funnily enough, much the same can happen in the departmental civil service, and units which are supposed to deal with certain sectors on behalf of government end up representing their "clients" to government!

Anyway, coming back to boards ... I'm not saying that would happen here, I would hope not, but I can see where Oscar is coming from.

And I do also have a strong sense that if moderators aren't user reps, then we're failing.

5starpool wrote: »

I don't 'get' these suggestions for user reps. What would they rep the users in exactly? How would they provide insight for the vast majority who likely post in only 1 or 2 forums? Where would these bastions of reasonable representation for the oppressed masses, who are willing to spare the time to do this, but have never been (presumably) asked to be a mod, going to be drawn from? The reason I am surmising that they probably were never asked to be a mod is that if they were willing to spare time/energy to do this demanding sounding role, chances are they would have accepted a mod position if offered.

Sorry for the cynicism, but it seems like an unrealistic and unworkable solution to a problem that does not exist. They would basically have to be trusted with the power of an admin in order to do the role that has been suggested, and to trust someone from going from normal user to admin not to use any of their new 'features' is a bit of a jump really, never mind the fact that defining a mandate for this role would be a contentious impossible job to give boundaries to.

Ok, the rest of the posts are in a similar trend. All you guys are leaping too far a head. Start small. First problem is help desk. Allow a topic starter to select one user, any user as their advocate. There's no real need for a user representative to be a static position. See if Muppet check rights are actually needed and tweak the system as you progress. This requires no tech modifications and is purely a policy issue.

For larger site wide issues perhaps a random survey of people who volunteer to voice an opinion? These are all problems which can be addressed once the concept has been accepted in principle. Issues like "will the rep have access to blah" merely bog down things.

BuffyBot

Drifting off topic folks.

Let's bring it back..

Nevyn

Boston wrote: »

Its late, I'm tired and going to bed. Anyone else wouldn't get a reply at this time so take that into account. You show we where I betrayed a trust placed in we? Where I've divulged information about a private forum. In my rule book, yes mine, not yours our anyone else's, when you use a medium outside of boards to plan an execuse attacks on me inside boards you loose the right to hide behind moderators privilege. I've broken no word or honour and I find the accusation offensive.


I love the way you jumped to the conclusion that its someone leaking informations to me rather then someone bragging about how they've fuked me over. But this is the last i'll post on this issue.

Ok.

You are feeling hurt upset and betrayed and have been feed enough information and misinformation that you have no trust in the systems in place on the the site or the people implementing them.

I get where you are coming from and I get the horrible gut wrenching feeling you must have felt if you think that they carry on by a few rotten apples was being passively condoned by the admins.

That is a truly horrendous place to be in and I am sorry if it seems I have added to it and I have turned on you. I haven't, I have fought your corner despite grief I have gotten for in the mod forum and in person from people.

But for weeks now you have been posting and dropping bread crumbs of information which look like you had knowledge of the mods forum. You have done so to back your arguments, call people out and to shít stir/whistle blow which frankly has smacked of the ends justifying the means.

You know well the mods forum is restricted access and you know why having once been a mod and you are damn right those who have been abusing their position as mods in that manner you have mentioned are frankly dishonourable scum and there are a lot of posters and mods who feel they are a waste of skin and can't understand how and why they are mods.

Most mods and posters had no idea what was going on in that irc channel and that certain mods were breaking the trust placed in them. Hell a lot of them don't even know what irc is never mind that channel exists.

What they did see was you repeatedly posting about how you knew what was going on in the mod forum and not handing over who it was and so you seem complicit to those actions.

Those of us who are good mods and who are honourable have been very disconcerted at where the info has been coming form and appalled that someone was betraying the trust placed in us. You know how it goes there are nearly 500 mods and if 5 are being vile excuses of human beings then it's going to shake and unsettled those who are good people.

You with your actions have caused more up set and discord then those who fed you the information/disinformation, with out having the real perpetrators to focus on and sort out you became the focus of people's ire, frustration and exasperation.

Why didn't you just shop the whole bloody lot of them?
Publicly naming and shaming and hosting the logs for anyone to download so the whole site can see what they are like or privately by getting the logs to those who are admins what you do have some trust in or trust someone else to do that if you think that the admins were out to get you too.

You could have came to even me about this and I would have had your back.
As it is with the way you went about things you alienated a lot of people.
If that system was really that rotten do you really think I would be apart of it?

You are letting a few extremely rotten apples skew your judgement and unfortunately with your well meaning but misplaced actions you have actually been spreading the rot. Yes there was a thread in mods about you, it was about your knowing things that you should not know and how you knew it.

I have never broached how you knew such things, you have always been in my estimation a good and honourable person ( despite being a blunt and contrary bollix the same as myself ) and was very concerned that you were dealing with a person who had no honour who was feeding you info and very confused as to why the hell you didn't turn them in.

At this stage it looks like you were feed a superplusgood troll potion and loosed on the site, they didn't need to come out of their sewers to do it they let you try storm the walls for them.

By their actions of disclosing information from the mods forum you know well they are not honourable and can't be trusted, why would you want to be around/associated with people like that.

I get that you have been hurt and they have been using this place to attack you and that you have felt assailed on all sides but, trust me things aren't as you think.

Seriously turn them in and cut contact with them, life is too short, get out of that sewer, you are better then that, I know you are.



and I know how passionate you are about this place and the good it has brought into your life and the lives of others, so I can see that you are concerned that it may be going in a direction which means the site will have more negative impact on people's lives then positive. That you don't want anyone else to have suffered the abuses you have recently and have seen happen or have been told happened.

This place allows people to connect and be in each other's lives and help and support each other.
From having someone to discuss the state of the nation to help and advice to getting a pm with a virtual hug, it's all part of what makes boards boards and why people stay and why people get involved and I get you want to see that be protected and move forward and that people who don't have as much gumption/backbone/guts what ever to stand up like we do, need to feel they can esp if they feel they are being targeted by other posters and mods.

I don't think the site needs poster reps, I do think that we need to make sure that mods and admins are approachable. I get pms from people all the time asking for advice or help or to point them in the right direction or to have posts deleted, hell I have had mods do the same, as long as we have people who care enough to be there and want everyone to have some of the good and positive experience that this site facilitating community has brought us then we will be ok, it will work out.

But those who attack and undermine that should be in my opinion nuked from orbit to be sure.
By the way I don't see constructive criticism or disagreeing or questioning to be attacking or undermining but bullying, abuse and disseminating information and disinformation as far as I am concerned is and I really hope the admins are in a position to sort this out and Boston I really hope that you are able to help them in what ever way needed to put a stop to it.

Right **** this I am off to get my first cup of coffee of the day.

Wibbs

+1 on Thaeds post

Thaedydal wrote: »

Most mods and posters had no idea what was going on in that irc channel and that certain mods were breaking the trust placed in them. Hell a lot of them don't even know what irc is never mind that channel exists.

Yep EG I've no clue what irc is. My knowledge stops at msn type stuff(I presume its the same kinda thing).

What they did see was you repeatedly posting about how you knew what was going on in the mod forum and not handing over who it was and so you seem complicit to those actions.

+1

Why didn't you just shop the whole bloody lot of them?
Publicly naming and shaming and hosting the logs for anyone to download so the whole site can see what they are like or privately by getting the logs to those who are admins what you do have some trust in or trust someone else to do that if you think that the admins were out to get you too.

The biggest +1 of all. There are logs of this stuff :eek:, jeez if true they sound dishonourable and thick. Bad mix.

I get pms from people all the time asking for advice or help or to point them in the right direction or to have posts deleted,

Ditto and most mods do I would have thought.

Conor

Wibbs wrote: »

The biggest +1 of all. There are logs of this stuff :eek:, jeez if true they sound dishonourable and thick. Bad mix.

Think of IRC as a multi-party MSN chat. Anyone participating in the chat can keep a transcript of the conversation and doing so is not uncommon. You can keep transcripts of MSN/Google Chat/AIM also, depending on the program you use for them - I do.

Nevyn

Wibbs is old and a

Beruthiel

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why didn't you just shop the whole bloody lot of them?

Publicly naming and shaming and hosting the logs for anyone to download so the whole site can see what they are like or privately by getting the logs to those who are admins.

Boston,
Feel free to drop me any proof you have on these Mods who have broken the trust of the rest of us.
I'll take care of it from there.
If they are feeding you info from the Mod forum, be aware of half truths and the leaving out of some comments which can completely change the way someone says something.

Asiaprod

+1 to above.

Wibbs

Conor wrote: »

Think of IRC as a multi-party MSN chat. Anyone participating in the chat can keep a transcript of the conversation and doing so is not uncommon. You can keep transcripts of MSN/Google Chat/AIM also, depending on the program you use for them - I do.

Ahh right. Yea I have saved logs of my msn chats myself in the past.



PS Feck off Thaedydal:p:D

Wibbs

TBH if this stuff is logged and pretty clear cut case of bullying, shíte stirring and general twattery, then I would suggest make it public. Don't keep it behind closed doors. Show the mechanism at work. I am not suggesting a ramshackle witch hunt, but if and when it's shown to be a solid enough situation, have it out in the open and name names and demod and/or ban people for it. Get's rid of all accusations of favouritism.

Boston it seems has been fed bits and pieces of mod forum stuff, so that stands to reason that at least one mod is opening his or her mouth or worse is actually behind some of this guff. The latter should be siteban territory IMHO. Plus Boston has also suggested in this very thread(or before it was spilt) what the admins are doing next/aiming for. In which case an admin is opening their gob or again worse, party in some way to this. If that isn't name and shame territory I don't know what is.

Not tidying house in this situation will affect the community. Maybe only at one level, but it'll be a lesser community for it.

5starpool

Name and shame in this instance is all very well, but I presume those named and shamed would have a private trial (as it were) with the admins before any public display to confirm that it was in fact them. Also, although I have not used IRC in years, a log of something in there would not necessarily point to a paritcular user in here. For example a person could call themselves DeVore and abuse people in there. Obviously that would not be the real DeVore, but the records would show it was posted as that.

Accusations are one thing, proof is another. I would like to know as much as the next person who is leaking crap. I wouldn't go as far as using the word 'vile' to describe them, but at best it is a betrayal of trust and should be stamped out.

CuLT

The one about the potential "talk to" forum idea is probably my fault. I was out with Boston a few weeks back, quite drunk, and might have let that one slip when I was attempting to talk to him about recent "problems".

I figured I was being vague enough; apparently not! My bad.

Certainly not forwarding/copying messages or searching PMs though.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH if this stuff is logged and pretty clear cut case of bullying, shíte stirring and general twattery, then I would suggest make it public. Don't keep it behind closed doors. Show the mechanism at work. I am not suggesting a ramshackle witch hunt, but if and when it's shown to be a solid enough situation, have it out in the open and name names and demod and/or ban people for it. Get's rid of all accusations of favouritism.

5starpool wrote: »

Name and shame in this instance is all very well, but I presume those named and shamed would have a private trial (as it were) with the admins before any public display to confirm that it was in fact them. Also, although I have not used IRC in years, a log of something in there would not necessarily point to a paritcular user in here. For example a person could call themselves DeVore and abuse people in there. Obviously that would not be the real DeVore, but the records would show it was posted as that.

Accusations are one thing, proof is another. I would like to know as much as the next person who is leaking crap. I wouldn't go as far as using the word 'vile' to describe them, but at best it is a betrayal of trust and should be stamped out.

5starpool pretty much alludes to the issue in this case. While a public "trial" is all well and good (and I recognise the benefit it would do for the community), boards is unfortunately not in possession of its own legally-recognised court, so needs to be very very careful in regards to Data protection and defamation.

Even with all the evidence in the world, calling someone out and publically declaring them a "traitor" would still be actionable defamation.

It's mainly because of these kinds of things that the kind of public circus surrounding the Glenstal incident just isn't feasible anymore.

At best, the admins can declare that they've found and removed the "mole" and that's about it. Even in that regard, they'd need to be careful about de-modding someone and giving enough information for people to join the dots.

Defamation law sucks.

Boston

CuLT wrote: »

The one about the potential "talk to" forum idea is probably my fault. I was out with Boston a few weeks back, quite drunk, and might have let that one slip when I was attempting to talk to him about recent "problems".

I figured I was being vague enough; apparently not! My bad.

Certainly not forwarding/copying messages or searching PMs though.

No, Conor or Darragh posted about it on feedback afew weeks ago. I could find the post if search was enabled.

Conor

Boston wrote: »

No, Conor or Darragh posted about it on feedback afew weeks ago. I could find the post if search was enabled.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62026250&postcount=17

Nevyn

Conduct unbecoming covers a multitude of sins
or services/assistance no longer required.