Sustainability and Environmental issues

jacaranda

Being newish on boards.ie, I try to read the forum charters to try to make sure I don't break the rules.

I found this http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055873534&page=7 thread interesting, but was dismayed to find that some posters don't stick to the rules. According to the forum it si not allowed to just paste a link to a youtube address or any other links without discussing it as stated in the charter; Rule 6; "Posting a link to a video (or anything else for that matter) does not constitute discussion. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it. If a video is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is".

One member posted a link here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65748190&postcount=100 without explanation, suggesting I might benefit from it.

When I mentioned here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65767014&postcount=101 that i agree with rule 6 above, I received a very rude message from djbarry saying i had received something called an infraction for doing do. When I replied asking if the other member taconnol had also received an infraction for an actual breach of the rules, djbarry rather tartly told me that i could report the offending post if I wanted to.

As djbarry refused to say if he had also sent an infraction to taconnol for breaking the rules, is it possible to find out if he did, or is his moderation impartial and he gives out infractions to some and not to others. I wonder is there any way of finding out as he seems to not want to say?

Nevyn

If you have an issue with a post or think it breaks the rules of a forum report it, do not back seat mod.
Have you pm the mod about this?
IF you weren't happy with thier answer did you pm the cat mod?

Bonito

All information you need can be found here.

Boards.ie Dispute resolution procedure.

jacaranda

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you have an issue with a post or think it breaks the rules of a forum report it, do not back seat mod.
Have you pm the mod about this?
IF you weren't happy with thier answer did you pm the cat mod?

I am new here and have no idea what a cat mod is. I have no intention of moderating anything. I replied to a message from djbarry asking if he has treated me equally with taconnol, who appears to have broken a rule of the forum, and he refused to say.

It seems silly to refuse to say, and either he has treated us both equally or he has not. Are you saying that, on boards, a moderator is able to treat different people in different ways, and does not have to explain his moderating decisions if it appears (I say appears as he is not giving clarity of it) that the moderator may be biased.

Nevyn

Pointing out in a thread that a post breaks a certain rule of a forum is considered back seat modding, and breaks the site rules;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_backseat

Don't back seat moderate

Imagine a game of soccer where one player kept running up to the ref and saying "you should have warned that guy" "that was offside" "time is up on this game". Annoying, yes? Sitting back as a user and consistently directing the moderator like a minion is going to get you kicked off the pitch. The correct way to bring something to our attention is to report the post.

But do not abuse this feature. Report posts which clearly break the rules not just posts you don’t agree with or from people you don’t like. That’s just being a dick.

<- Back to Guidelines

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_how#faq_bie_faq_how_reportpost

How do I report a post?

Please click on the Report Post button ( ) on the bottom left of the individual post in question (under the name of the member that posted it).

Every forum is in a given category, each category has cat mods who over view it and the actions of the mods who mod the forums in it.

If you are not happy with the actions of a mod you talk with the cat mod,
if you can not resolve the matter then you start a thread in the help desk forum.

Mods do have to explain their mod actions to cat mods and admins, they don't have to explain them to posters unless they are taking action on that posters post.


Honestly being confrontational and telling a mod how to mod a forum is not going to get you very far, it would have been better if you had just of reported the post and pointed out in the report how you think if broke the rules of the forum.

Yes mods are biased at times, esp when it comes with dealing with someone who is new to the site and someone who is on the site longer and had contributed more.

Mods also get sick of people who demand to be treated 'fairly' like kids who sullenly refuse to take a rebuke and responsibility for their actions unless everyone else is also punished.

Did you report the post after being asked by the mod?

As you seem to be pretty new to the site reading the site FAQ might be helpful as you seem to have fallen foul of some of the basics. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq

Bonito

jacaranda wrote: »

I am new here and have no idea what a cat mod is. I have no intention of moderating anything. I replied to a message from djbarry asking if he has treated me equally with taconnol, who appears to have broken a rule of the forum, and he refused to say.

It seems silly to refuse to say, and either he has treated us both equally or he has not. Are you saying that, on boards, a moderator is able to treat different people in different ways, and does not have to explain his moderating decisions if it appears (I say appears as he is not giving clarity of it) that the moderator may be biased.

Don't fret over it. A lot of people are not very patient and would rather give out than help you have a better boards experience if you're a new user on here.

Having looked at the thread, it's an odd one. My take on your post is you were just stating your agreement with a rule within the charter laid out for that forum and you were treated a tad unfairly by the mod seeing as you're still finding your feet on here.

This is your post. If you look to the bottom right you will see a yellow card. This is your infraction. If you click it you will see the following;

1. Why you receive it.
2. When it expires.
3. Name of mod who infracted you.

Mods don't like the charter being pulled in to the threads. If you see a problem with a post you bring it off the thread/discussion. You do this by reporting the post.

Reporting a post: Every post has a layout. If a post you are reading is in breach of a rule do the following.

1. Establish what rule has been breached.
2. Click report a post icon. (This is found in the bottom left of the post, just under their username/avatar/join date/etc.
3. Clicking this brings you in to a window that contains a text box.
4. Simply type in your reason for reporting. (In your instance it would have been "I believe the user to be in breach of charter rule 6)
5. Go back to the thread and leave it to the mods to deal with.
6. Should the mod fail to look in to it you pm the cmod. These are higher status and they rule over every moderator within their' category.

The cmods for Soc, which is the category where your posts where, are nesfw and Scofflaw. Should these fail to give you a result you turn to any admin or the Helpdesk.

I'd like to point out that taconnol is djbarry's co-mod of that forum so he would be familiar with the charter. If you're in their forum, you have to play by their rules.

The reason you were infracted was most likely because you were reported for back seat modding. taconnol might not have been reported for breaching rule 6 of the forum charter. Therefore, no action would be taken against him.

jacaranda

Thaedydal wrote: »

Honestly being confrontational and telling a mod how to mod a forum is not going to get you very far, it would have been better if you had just of reported the post and pointed out in the report how you think if broke the rules of the forum.

I'm not Irish and , really, am not interested in a forum where being direct, (which you call being confrontational) is "not going to get you very far".

I was here to discuss issues, but you suggest that people who are here for a long time are treated differently to those who are not, insofar as you seem to suggest that its ok for people who are here a long time to break the rules which others are expected to obey, and get away with it.

Friends who had been on boards.ie had said that it had, recently, become a less friendly place to have fun and discuss issues, and certainly the response to my question, where djbarry avoids responding to what appears to be unfair moderating, and where in this thread it seems to be suggested that biased and unfair moderating is acceptable, is simply not fair.

Especially where there is a written charter, but you seem to suggest that some people are subject to the written charter and other are not.

If I have misunderstood your position, then please forgive me. I have a strong sense of justice and hate unfairness and treating different people differently for the same mistake.

Bonito

Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the entirety of boards, promotes or condones bullying or harsh & unfair treatment across the site.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you bring up charter rules on a thread you clutter it and bring it off topic. This annoys mods. This gives them 2 reasons to throw the book at you. Next time just report it and get on with the thread. If you don't understand something try asking the poster "Can you explain your link in your own words so I can grasp an understanding of it please."

Wibbs

IMHO a short PM from the mod would have been a better route to take, especially with a new user not down with the feel of the place. Plus it would help alleviate the "them and us" vibe that sometimes is felt around here. Hindsight is 20/20 of course and mods are volunteers, who may be rushing out the door and infract on the spur of the moment etc.

This site is a fairy mod heavy one. I for one think that's generally a very good thing as other sites an be bloody hard work wading through the "yore ma/fcuk you!"'s to get to the actual conversation and debate. Here we dont have that and that makes a big diff and I think more and more sites will go down the same route. In 10 years time I suspect more will be like boards than the other way around as more and more people get involved. The them and us stuff should be avoided as much as poss though.

My 2 cents.

Nevyn

The site has it's policy and it's proceedures, you didn't follow the procedure for when a post breaks the rules of the forum.

Again, have you gone and reported the post?

Everyone who posts in a forum is bound by the rules.
That being said I am not going to comment on the actions of the mod you have mentioned, it's not my place, you need to lodge a complaint with their
cat mod and have their actions looked at.

That is the procedure for when you see what is unfair moderating.

jacaranda wrote: »

If I have misunderstood your position, then please forgive me. I have a strong sense of justice and hate unfairness and treating different people differently for the same mistake.

Yes posters will be treated differently for the same action/breach of the rules.
If a poster who is new to the site will usually get a warning as you did, a yellow card.

If a poster who is not new to the site or forum does the same they may be banned from a forum for a period of time.

If a poster who is a known trouble maker and has had been banned previously was to post the exact same as the poster who is new to the site
they could well be permanently banned form the forum.

The exact same post by 3 differnt posters can have 3 different outcomes.

jacaranda

Thaedydal wrote: »

Again, have you gone and reported the post?

Everyone who posts in a forum is bound by the rules.

I think this correspondence is likely to go around in circles, so I will attempt to not do that. Apologies if you think I am being pedantic, but its important to clarify.

No, I haven't reported the post. Having said that, the moderator who jumped down my throat obviously has seen the post, as it was the one above mine and was a subject of mine. The moderator seems to have decided to issue and infraction to me for pointing out that there is a rule called rule 6, and has also decided not to give an infraction to the other poster who has, quite clearly, broken rule 6.

Thus, how anyone can draw the conclusion that everyone who posts is bound by the rules seems uncertain.

Finally, once this has been brought to the attention of the moderator, his reaction is not to think about it and realise that the impression he is giving out is that there are two sets of rules, one for a new member of boards and another for someone who appears to have been here much longer.

Bonito

jacaranda wrote: »

No, I haven't reported the post.

Then nothing will be done about it, simple as.

Having said that, the moderator who jumped down my throat obviously has seen the post, as it was the one above mine and was a subject of mine.

Null point, if it's not reported they wont do anything.

The moderator seems to have decided to issue and infraction to me for pointing out that there is a rule called rule 6, and has also decided not to give an infraction to the other poster who has, quite clearly, broken rule 6.

Yes, you back seat modded rather than reporting the post, which is the way to go. As I said before, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Wrong one: Poster breaking rule 6 of charter.
Wrong two: You pointed it out on thread rather than reporting the post.

Thus, how anyone can draw the conclusion that everyone who posts is bound by the rules seems uncertain.

Finally, once this has been brought to the attention of the moderator, his reaction is not to think about it and realise that the impression he is giving out is that there are two sets of rules, one for a new member of boards and another for someone who appears to have been here much longer.

The other user is the 2nd moderator of that forum. The moderator who infracted you is hardly going to infract his co-mod. Report it. You're not going to get anywhere here unless you do. If there is no action taken after you report it then contact Nesf or scofflaw, the cmods.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

No, I haven't reported the post.

Why not?

jacaranda wrote: »

Having said that, the moderator who jumped down my throat obviously has seen the post, as it was the one above mine and was a subject of mine.

I believe I know which post you are referring to, but I am not entirely certain what the problem is with this post? Hence my repeated requests for you to report the post.

jacaranda wrote: »

The moderator seems to have decided to issue and infraction to me...

You were not infracted, you were warned – they are not the same thing.

jacaranda wrote: »

...for pointing out that there is a rule called rule 6, and has also decided not to give an infraction to the other poster who has, quite clearly, broken rule 6.

You were issued with a warning for discussing moderation in-thread. As you have still not reported any posts, I have not taken any further action.

jacaranda wrote: »

Finally, once this has been brought to the attention of the moderator, his reaction is not to think about it and realise that the impression he is giving out is that there are two sets of rules, one for a new member of boards and another for someone who appears to have been here much longer.

First of all, if I had to explain every single action I take as a moderator to every poster, boards.ie would dominate my life. Secondly, my ‘reaction’ when you brought this issue to my attention was: "If you have an issue with a post, then use the 'Report Post' function."

jacaranda

Bonito wrote: »

The other user is the 2nd moderator of that forum. The moderator who infracted you is hardly going to infract his co-mod.

Why not?

If you are saying that co moderators are treated differently than others by the moderators, then that certainly seems to back up the evidence in this case.

I have just now reported the post!

Bonito

The co-mod has been there longer, meaning if he was infracted it'd be more severe as he should know the rules. Maybe even be a ban worthy offence. Are you suggesting djpbarry ban his co-mod for a couple days and mod the forum alone?

jacaranda

What I have said is that the rules should apply to all equally. I'm not suggesting anything more or less than that.

Bonito

OK. So you understand and accept that you broke a rule?

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

I have just now reported the post!

And I have just seen the report, but allow me to clarify...

You initially wondered why a chart that taconnol had posted only covered the date range 2000-2009.

Taconnol responded, indicating that a link to the entire date range, 1880-2010, had already been posted.

However, you then claimed that you could not make 'head nor tail' of this data.

I directed you to an explanatory note at the end of the file, essentially explaining how the data should be interpreted.

You maintained that you were still confused and did not know what the data represented.

Finally, in the post that you have just reported, taconnol suggested that an introduction to GISS temperature analysis may be helpful and provided a link to said introduction.

Given all of the above, I fail to see how you could possibly interpret this as someone posting a link without an accompanying explanation. I see no issue with taconnol's post.

ibarelycare

Bonito wrote: »

OK. So you understand and accept that you broke a rule?

jacaranda

djpbarry wrote: »

And I have just seen the report, but allow me to clarify...

You initially wondered why a chart that taconnol had posted only covered the date range 2000-2009.

Taconnol responded, indicating that a link to the entire date range, 1880-2010, had already been posted.

However, you then claimed that you could not make 'head nor tail' of this data.

I directed you to an explanatory note at the end of the file, essentially explaining how the data should be interpreted.

You maintained that you were still confused and did not know what the data represented.

Finally, in the post that you have just reported, taconnol suggested that an introduction to temporary analysis may be helpful and provided a link to said introduction.

Given all of the above, I fail to see how you could possibly interpret this as someone posting a link without an accompanying explanation. I see no issue with taconnol's post.

Your argument seems to be that it is, in fact, acceptable to post a link, without any explanation or discussion about it, in certain circumstances.

Rule 6 states "Posting a link to a video (or anything else for that matter) does not constitute discussion. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it. If a video is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is".

No where did I see a summary of the contents or arguments as explicitly asked for in rule 6.

It's simply not fair to say, as you appear to, that so long as someone somewhere thinks it is in context, then rule 6 does not apply.

Rules are there to be understood by everyone using the site, and if you think its acceptable to ignore a rule, then why not change the rule to say that and give clarity, rather than just ignoring a rule because someone somewhere judges it to be "in context" or "out of context".

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

Rule 6 states "Posting a link to a video (or anything else for that matter) does not constitute discussion. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it. If a video is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is".

I draw your attention to the statement in bold - I believe taconnol made it quite clear why she was posting the link and I'm sure she would have been quite prepared to discuss the content.

jacaranda

djpbarry wrote: »

I draw your attention to the statement in bold - I believe taconnol made it quite clear why she was posting the link and I'm sure she would have been quite prepared to discuss the content.

So now your argument is that, because you are sure she was quite prepared to discuss the content (although in the post we are discussing she did not discuss the content and appears to have broken the rule, and the very bit you ahve highlighted), then thats alright, and rule 6 can be ignored?

The piece in bold you have highlighted clearly states that If a video is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is, and your argument now seems to be now that it's ok to not state what that point is, and ignore rule 6, so long as someone is sure that the poster is prepared to discuss the content at another time.

If you believe its ok to ignore a rule because you imagine a poster might be prepared to discuss it another time, then why not change the rules to reflect that?

What is the point of having a written rule, if the rule is declared null and void by anyone who is sure the poster who has broken the rule is prepared to discuss it at another (unspecified) time?

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

The piece in bold you have highlighted clearly states that If a video is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is, and your argument now seems to be now that it's ok to not state what that point is...

The reason for posting the link was clearly stated and I think you know that. You claimed to have difficulty understanding some data, so taconnol linked to some supporting information. Rather than realising that she was trying to help you out, you’re trying to invoke some weird interpretation of the charter to see her punished. If you had subsequently asked taconnol to clarify something in the material and she flatly refused, then you might have a point.

The rule that you are referring to was written with the intention of stopping posters from, for example, starting threads with links to 90 minute documentaries with absolutely no accompanying text and no indication as to what point they were trying to make. This is clearly not what has taken place in this instance – the reason for the link being posted is abundantly clear.

I’m done explaining myself repeatedly – if you’re still unwilling to accept that taconnol has done nothing wrong, then there’s nothing I can say at this stage that’s going to change your mind. Feel free to escalate this to nesf and/or Scofflaw (perhaps direct them to this thread if you wish).

I will finish by saying that the charter is not a legally-watertight document – I fully expected that someone would try and exploit loopholes in it. But it’s somewhat irrelevant, because at the end of the day, it’s up to moderators to make a judgement call in each individual situation.

bonkey

Seeing as this is in Feedback for some reason...

jacaranda wrote: »

No where did I see a summary of the contents or arguments as explicitly asked for in rule 6.

You were supplied a link and told that it was "the introductory explanation to GISS surface temperature analysis",

How is that not a summary of the contents?

jacaranda

djpbarry wrote: »

...The rule that you are referring to was written with the intention of stopping posters from, for example, starting threads with links to 90 minute documentaries with absolutely no accompanying text and no indication as to what point they were trying to make...

Then why not change it to reflect that. Certainly it mentions nothing about what you say here, so would it not be a good idea to change it to reflect what you now claim is its intention.

djpbarry wrote: »

I will finish by saying that the charter is not a legally-watertight document – I fully expected that someone would try and exploit loopholes in it. But it’s somewhat irrelevant, because at the end of the day, it’s up to moderators to make a judgement call in each individual situation.

I'm pointing out what it actually says! The irony appears to be that you are claiming that you judge the intention to be something other than what it actually states!

I don't see why you can't just change the rule to say what you want it to say, rather than claiming that it's ok to interpret it in another way because you know the intention of the rule, or because you are sure about the intentions of the poster, or because someone judges the context in which the offending post was written.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to change the rules to say that so that everyone can understand them?