Disappearing post

Discodog

Forum: Animal Welfare
Topic: Shock Collars


A very informative & substantive post has "disappeared" from this forum.

The poster Jimmyn has stated that he did not delete it & that he has not heard from the Mods.

Can someone explain why the post has gone & reinstate it.

Beruthiel

Moved to Help Desk

Our man in Havana

Post reinstated subject to edits by mods. End of the matter.

Discodog

Well, with respect, it is not or would you prefer to me to raise a separate thread ?. Or am I not allowed to do that ?. I did not "back seat mod". I asked a mod to reply as the post just disappeared with no explanation or are we not entitled to an explanation ?. Is it now the system that Mods will just pull posts & hope that we don't notice ?.

Your own post is the most offensive & threatening on the whole thread:

"The next back seat mod gets a permanent ban from here.
Report offensive posts, DO NOT RESPOND TO THEM! unless you want a ban also.

Debate in a civilised manner or you know where the door is. Understand? I think a lot of people here do not read charters or understand the rules.

I have had enough of the back seat modding and people who cannot accept criticism.

Cop on or else ".

You might note that the OP has just referred to me as being level headed !. Why are these discussion so heavily over-modded here when they work really well on other forums ?. I have posted 500 times & only ever had grief with you. No other forum is modded this way. Take a look at Personal Issues as an example of a difficult subject that is very well modded.

Why are references to certain organisations banned by you, in the charter, for "emotional terrorism" ?. Do you intend to vet the net & decide which organisation reach your criteria ?. ARAN have been running campaigns against animals in circuses & greyhound racing. Are they not acceptable topics ?.

Would it not be a good idea if the Mods were rotated between boards to retain impartiality ?.

Edit: I would add that the Animal Board seems to attract a lot of mods who then almost compete to be the hardest. One will post a warning & then another will come along & do the "well your lucky that I didn't deal with this" bit. If every other forum on boards threatened bans for the terms "Muppet" & "Wankfest" there wouldn't be many left.

2nd EDIT: Now a third mod has joined in with the threats. You want us to be moderate so can you be too please ?.

star-pants

Actually if you read any forums charters or rules you'll see people are not allowed to back seat mod. This includes questioning mods decisions.

Bond-007 removed a post in order to edit it - you make it sound like we're snipping random posts secretly on people without reason. Jimmy was being abusive to the OP and to the Animal Welfare forum, I'd have banned him myself had I seen that post.

IF you have a question regarding a post disappearing etc - you pm one of the mods and ask them. There is not always going to be notification given as to why a post is deleted, a mod or admin may come in and delete a post they deem to be needed to be removed.

I would like to point out not all forums here have such passionate posters and from experience things can descend very quickly to insults and everyone being annoyed.
References to certain organisations are not banned soley by Bond-007 -- incase you hadn't noticed there are, for starters, 4 other mods in that forum. AND Boards.ie rules apply across all forums. We cannot allow certain organisations be mentioned as a) we can be sued for slander and b) it usually results in heated arguements that go nowhere.

Boards.ie is not a podium for free speech, we are constricted by rules and laws like everyone else.

Personal Issues is a completely different kettle of fish, and it is one of the most fiercely modded forums - they would be a lot stricter than our forum actually.

I'm not sure you quite understand boards if you suggest we all rotate on forums. That defeats the purpose of the mods elected. Mods are elected for each forum for a reason, they are usually knowledgeable and or involved in the area and thus have a better insight perhaps to the general joe soap. For example I would be a useless mod in Fashion& Appearance as I have zero interest and wouldn't be able to help or contribute.
Mods are also elected as they are deemed being capable of the position and they're not elected lightly.

Bond-007 is a very good mod IMO and if you look across all the mods some take more crap than others. I've been told I'm a bit of a soft mod at times, because I give maybe benefit of the doubt more than I should. I don't believe Bond-007s post to be offensive at all - it speaks the truth and says that we've put up with enough people not using the report post button and/or not reading the rules and warning people that we won't be acting lightly in future.

Discodog

Unless I am mistaken there was only one case that involved potential slander/libel & that was resolved to Boards benefit. The phrase used in the charter is "emotional terrorism" whatever that means. I am sure that the Irish organisation (named like some Islands) & it's members would disagree.

Is standing outside a circus tent with a banner emotional terrorism ?. If so we had better ban all politics for a start. It seems a little strange that websites that could possibly contradict the opinions of mods have been singled out. Both these site campaign for legislation on the keeping of wild animals - which might be of interest to certain mods.

I started a thread on feedback some time ago asking for a animal welfare forum. Several Mods thought it unnecessary. I am disappointed that it appears to have some strange rules. Interest in a subject may be a good or bad qualification for a mod depending on whether it make their judgement biased.

By the way if certain site references are banned here why are the same sites OK on other boards ?. You cannot use the argument that they are banned to avoid heated discussion - that is what we are here for.

star-pants

There is one case that got far enough for the general public to be aware of. There are many potential cases created by things people say every day across boards.ie not just on the Animal Welfare forum. I will ask Dav or Darragh to come in and explain that part to you if you wish - we get orders from above regarding what's potentially libellous etc. And as I'm sure you've seen in both issues and welfare forum we are not allowed talk about a lot of people/shelters/organisations in possible bad light.

If you wish to give examples of particular websites being singled out? I personally have never singled out any website or organisation for deletion. I work according to our charter and from any orders given from above, I do not moderate purely on my own personal feelings. I personally couldn't care less if people said X Y and Z about an organisation, people are entitled to their opinion. BUT as has been said before, boards.ie is not a podium for free speech, nor is it a podium to round up people to protest (which people have tried before) by linking to such organisations or arranged protests.

Btw if you're attempting to have a not so subtle dig at 'certain mods' I suggest you either explain yourself or drop it.

When you say 'other boards' I assume you don't mean boards.ie? If you mean non boards.ie sites then it's irrelevant, how another site runs their forum is their own business and nothing whatsoever got to do with us.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Unless I am mistaken there was only one case that involved potential slander/libel & that was resolved to Boards benefit. The phrase used in the charter is "emotional terrorism" whatever that means. I am sure that the Irish organisation (named like some Islands) & it's members would disagree.

As Star pants has said there was one case that the regular users got to know about.The admins of this site private message all moderators of the potential of a legal issue with certain threads.These threads are then either deleted or edited sometimes even before there is a reply to it.

Is standing outside a circus tent with a banner emotional terrorism ?.
If so we had better ban all politics for a start. It seems a little strange that websites that could possibly contradict the opinions of mods have been singled out. Both these site campaign for legislation on the keeping of wild animals - which might be of interest to certain mods.

Its got nothing to do with the mods opinions.If we get a prior warning that the website in question may cause legal issues for boards then we remove the links and thread.

I started a thread on feedback some time ago asking for a animal welfare forum. Several Mods thought it unnecessary. I am disappointed that it appears to have some strange rules. Interest in a subject may be a good or bad qualification for a mod depending on whether it make their judgement biased.

I think the welfare forum does its job quite well to be honest.The discussions in there while they get quite heated at times DO need to be moderated differently than the main forum as this thread in particular highlights.
The rules are there to keep things in check.

As for interest in a subject being a condition of being a mod--It makes perfect sense.No point in for example having a mod for computers who is totally illiterate in techie stuff or a animals and pets mod who doesnt keep pets.Boards has always worked that way and in my opinion thats why there is such a huge membership.I visit similar forums where the mods just dont care about the forums they mod and it doesnt work as well as boards.

By the way if certain site references are banned here why are the same sites OK on other boards ?. You cannot use the argument that they are banned to avoid heated discussion - that is what we are here for.

It depends on the context in which the site is mentioned.In animals and pets certain sites may get mentioned in a "dont go near that place because so and so says theyre useless" where as say soemone is looking for a boarding kennel in the " Kildare" forum and the same place is mentioned then thats ok.
Likewise with After hours where almost anything goes.If you can point us in the direction of the site references in a few different forums we`ll have a look and try and see your point of view on it.

Discodog

I appreciate the time taken & thorough nature of your replies. I would of thought that the recent case proved that Boards are pretty immune for potential legal action.

I have only ever questioned Boards & it's moderation concerning possible issues of censorship. We are pretty much all here for the same reason & free speech is a key element. I would hope that Boards will make further enquiries as to whether there really is any legal threat from links to these sites. I would of thought that Boards would be making it self more open to legal action by libelling these organisations. Terrorism is a word that is not used lightly these days. I would stress that I am not a member or in any way affiliated to the two organisations but I do find it disappointing that links to their sites are banned.

The Charter makes no reference to legal issues but says that Links to sites such as PETA or ARAN or any other organisation known for using "emotional terrorism" will not be tolerated on this board. God knows how you define "emotional terrorism" or how you decide which websites/organisations use it or are known for it. Many charities show images of starving children. How is this different from images of abused animals ?. Clearly it is the opinion of the author.

Unfortunately this part of the Charter makes Boards look very biased & greatly damages it's integrity. It is a critical part of Moderating & creating Charters that one's personal views do not influence decisions.
I would also note that I can find no other Animal/Welfare forum that excludes references to these sites or that refers to emotional terrorism.