I want to get a warning reversed from one of the Politics Moderators.

gandalf

As per the procedure I would like to register my disagreement with this warning and I want to get it expunged from my account. I have PM'ed Scofflaw & then nesf about this already but have gotten no satisfaction from either of them. Nesf advised me to post here as he feels he cannot be 100% impartial on the situation given his feelings to the current ME situation in the forum at the moment.

My comment was a response to another post and both were relevant to the topic in hand. It was a fair response to BlaasForRafa. It was not meant in a way to illicit any sort of rise out of Blaas who has engaged in any discussion we have had over the last few days in a most civil fashion.

I await your response with interest.

Warning details listed below.

Scofflaw wrote:

Dear gandalf,

You have received a warning at boards.ie.

Reason:

---

Breach of Peace

Don't do it.

---

Original Post:
[post]66256440[/post]

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its funny then that this board is absolutely flooded with anti-Israel threads and posters at the moment.

Well given they have a point about Israel being in the wrong maybe.

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
boards.ie

Scofflaw

Initially, I'd like to say that the thread in question is not about the Israel question itself, and the post by gandalf in response to BlaasForRafa would have taken it in that direction - and I think that gandalf is an experienced enough poster to know that himself.

That said, I would quite happily have reversed that warning had I been approached personally by gandalf and requested to do so - it was, after all, a warning.

Instead, we seem to be in a position where I am to second-guess what gandalf considers acceptable moderation, and moderate him only to that extent and no further, at risk of high dudgeon and immediate escalation. That is not a sustainable situation - I would much prefer to have gandalf posting in the forum, but he has to accept that moderation applies to him as to others.

moderately,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Initially, I'd like to say that the thread in question is not about the Israel question itself, and the post by gandalf in response to BlaasForRafa would have taken it in that direction - and I think that gandalf is an experienced enough poster to know that himself.

That said, I would quite happily have reversed that warning had I been approached personally by gandalf and requested to do so - it was, after all, a warning.

Instead, we seem to be in a position where I am to second-guess what gandalf considers acceptable moderation, and moderate him only to that extent and no further, at risk of high dudgeon and immediate escalation. That is not a sustainable situation - I would much prefer to have gandalf posting in the forum, but he has to accept that moderation applies to him as to others.

moderately,
Scofflaw

If you are talking about the fact I copied everyone on the request for reversal of the warning. It was not personally aimed at you. It was force of habit from my moderating days where I tended to copy all moderators on any communications I had with them.

Anyway what is wrong with me copying all the moderators of politics on any query or problem. I had people do that consistently on messages to me when I moderated on Boards and I never took it as an insult. Instead you took it personally and send an equally glib and smart ass response to me which I did take exception to.

I gather from what you are saying is that you now agree that the warning was harsh and if I was "nice" to you then it would have been expunged but because I queried it copying all the mods you now feel it was correct because you got the hump?

Not a very good way to moderate Scofflaw is it?

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

If you are talking about the fact I copied everyone on the request for reversal of the warning. It was not personally aimed at you. It was force of habit from my moderating days where I tended to copy all moderators on any communications I had with them.

I've been informed that that was standard practice when you were modding Politics, so I accept that I was wrong to think it was anything particularly pointed. However, at the time that's exactly what I assumed, because it is not standard practice now. It therefore looked to me like an appeal to the audience, which would have been out of place.

gandalf wrote: »

Anyway what is wrong with me copying all the moderators of politics on any query or problem. I had people do that consistently on messages to me when I moderated on Boards and I never took it as an insult. Instead you took it personally and send an equally glib and smart ass response to me which I did take exception to.

I gather from what you are saying is that you now agree that the warning was harsh and if I was "nice" to you then it would have been expunged but because I queried it copying all the mods you now feel it was correct because you got the hump?

Not a very good way to moderate Scofflaw is it?

I'm pointing out that it was a warning, not an infraction. Its purpose, therefore, was to warn you. Had you PM'd me to say "OK, I've been warned - I disagree that it was necessary" in any polite way, then the warning would have done its job, I would have done mine, you would have acknowledged that that was what was happening, and I would have had no problem whatsoever expunging it from the record. Instead we are, as they say, where we are right now.

It's not about being nice to me - it's about whether you respect the fact that you're not moderating, you're being moderated. As far as I can see, you don't respect that, and that's a problem for the forum if you're going to be as active as you have been recently. I don't treat anyone else with kid gloves - why am I supposed to be putting them on for you?

regards,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've been informed that that was standard practice when you were modding Politics, so I accept that I was wrong to think it was anything particularly pointed. However, at the time that's exactly what I assumed, because it is not standard practice now. It therefore looked to me like an appeal to the audience, which would have been out of place.

Maybe you shouldn't take things personally.

I'm pointing out that it was a warning, not an infraction. Its purpose, therefore, was to warn you. Had you PM'd me to say "OK, I've been warned - I disagree that it was necessary" in any polite way, then the warning would have done its job, I would have done mine, you would have acknowledged that that was what was happening, and I would have had no problem whatsoever expunging it from the record. Instead we are, as they say, where we are right now.

Hang on so now your saying the warning is not a warning if I am polite with you. You have backed up my analysis that the warning would not have stood if I was "nice" to you based on your initial response here. If there is enough of a doubt that a warning can be revoked because someone is "nice" or "polite" in your opinion then the warning should not have been issued in the first place.

It's not about being nice to me - it's about whether you respect the fact that you're not moderating, you're being moderated. As far as I can see, you don't respect that, and that's a problem for the forum if you're going to be as active as you have been recently. I don't treat anyone else with kid gloves - why am I supposed to be putting them on for you?

So basically you are now paranoid because I moderated Politics among quite a few other forums in the past. I stood down from moderating so I KNOW I am no longer moderating but Scofflaw do not be so arrogant to think that I or any other user cannot question your decisions either by pm or here in the prescribed forum. You should be comfortable enough with your decisions that when a user comes back to you and all your peers (fellow mods) that you can handle the query objectively. You on the other hand acted emotionally.

With regard to respect Scofflaw I certain has lost quite a bit for you in our exchanges. Does it make me question your ability to moderate, naturally it does.

I think our interaction here has ended, I posted here to ask an admin for their call (as per procedure) and I did not want to drag our differences out in public. But you choose to come on here and you choose to respond in public. I apologise if I hurt your feelings in the original PM that wasn't my intention but you have opened my eyes and made me seriously wonder about quite a few things with regard to moderation on Politics. And given the years I moderated that forum I think I am entitled to that don't you.

r3nu4l

Okay, okay, okay. Let's all unknot ourselves for a minute here.

My take on it.

1. Warning was issued as the post was very likely to have taken the thread into the Israel good/bad debate.

That seems fair enough to me, it was only a warning after all and warnings often serve not just as a warning to the user in question but also as a visible indicator to all posters that taking the thread in a particular direction would not be a good thing.

2. Gandalf mass-PM'ed asking for removal of warning.

Fair enough.

3. Scofflaw misconstrued the intent.

Fair enough, understandable.

4. Scofflaw says that had the request been made on a personal level then the warning could have been quietly removed.

I've no problem with this. I've often issued bans to users from forums only to have the user come back to say 'fair enough, yup, I was wrong, totally accept that. Sorry.' Sometimes when that happens I'll reduce ban-length or reverse the ban entirely. A LOT of mods do this. Gandalf you would be well aware of that too. When a user gets stroppy about their ban or warning then quite often the ban/warning is left to stand. It's not that 'being nice' gets it reversed, it's recognising that the initial post was wrong that gets it reversed!

5. Gandalf and Scofflaw engage in stand-off and begin to get personal with one another

Meh, it's a warning folks. Come on!! This makes me a sad Admin
Scofflaw is an excellent mod, Gandalf, in your time you did some excellent modding too.


Now, did your post deserve a warning? In my opinion it did yes. You are around this site long enough to know what a post like that would do and as a former mod you would have known the type of work it would entail.

Maybe, personally, I would have posted an on-thread warning first but that's only because I'm not a fan of the yellow card, I prefer on-thread warn, red card and ban. However, the yellow card is there to be used exactly as it was in this case.

In my view the warning stands, regardless of anything that went on afterwards.

gandalf

Even when the reason for my post which was to go onto the topic of Israel specifically actually happened later on in that thread with Scofflaw taking an active part in that discussion. Smacks of double standards that now doesn't it r3nu4l.

r3nu4l

gandalf wrote: »

Even when the reason for my post which was to go onto the topic of Israel specifically actually happened later on in that thread with Scofflaw taking an active part in that discussion. Smacks of double standards that now doesn't it r3nu4l.

I'm afraid that I don't see any double standards here gandalf.

The difference between your post and those that came after yours are obvious. Your post was designed to incite and inflame discussion over whether Israel were right or wrong in their actions as a nation (off-topic) and NOT whether Israel or other groups were participating in onlnie propoganda (on-topic). Your post would have brought about discussion on Israeli commandos storming aid convoys, Israeli action in Gaza etc., had it been allowed to stand.

Also, you weren't the only poster to receive a warning in that thread, another poster posted this (warned and deleted) before you posted:

What surprises me is how anyone can defend Israel's actions!

and got the same treatment as you. That's hardly a sign of double standards gandalf.

Soon after Scofflaw posted this

To clarify that - this thread is about use of the Internet / social media by political activists to push their particular point of view in an organised way.

So it was very clear as to what was on-topic and what was not. Then you posted your off-topic post and got warned for it.

Subsequent posts mentioning Israel talked about their (and private companies) use of the Internet for shilling/propoganda, the very point of the topic being discussed.

There are a couple of other posts in that thread that commented on the fact that many threads were anti-Israel and that others constantly complained about anti-Israel threads. Those posts could have been deleted [imo] (without warnings) but they can also be read to be not-so-subtle comments on the fact that there appears to be a number of pro- and anti-Israel posters using boards.ie for propoganda purposes.

If you can't see the difference then I can't do any more for you.

gandalf

Well it looks like we differ on quite a few different points in both your resposes then r3nu4l. I did expect this to be a pointless task tbh but I appreciate your input into it.