Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Moderators
Options
Comments
-
The facts are the facts tho dude. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything about you or anything, but all the stuff you're saying about preferential treatment simply isn't true, and the facts back that up. You say he doesn't get infracted - he does, the last time by scofflaw. That would seem to support scofflaws argument rather than yours. You say you'd be treated differently if your name was in italics, but bantams isn't and donegalfellas (another poster I've a lot of time for btw) is. That would seem to backup scofflaws argument rather than yours. You see where I'm coming from? By the way, the only way you can edit a post and not have an edit note appear is if you edit it almost immediately after you post it. That would suggest that bantam edited his post himself, rather than as the result of instruction. It seems line you've made an assumption about how boards works and are retroactively looking for 'facts' to back it up. However if you go the other way, and use the facts to come to a conclusion, your conclusion just doesn't add up.
He may get infractions when he's so obviously trying to bait people and mods just can't defend him, but there are many times he gets away with things that other posters would catch a card or a ban for. I'm sure most people who post regularly on the politics forum would agree. Maybe I'll just start a log of complaints on the thread I started on help desk.0 -
Here's a quote from Sceptre regarding FB's posts in that particular thread.I think if you read what the guy said, you'll find that he was aiming his comment squarely at the protesters. Not at you. The trouble with being on a high horse sometimes is that it's hard to see the ground at one's feet. Now, you may or may not agree with his views on the protesters. Difference of opinion is one of the main reasons this forum exists. But taking comments personally when they're not directed at you isn't - save it for the ones that are.
Personally I find this "pal, friend, buddy" stuff to be plain idiotic and probably an attempt to inflame. I give it no credence, I offer it no sympathy, it makes me think less of the people who use it here as it's never meant as a conciliatory gesture. However, limit your outrage to the comments directed at you please, you'll have a better day and a longer life if you do.
Now, if you have comments on this post, send them to me via PM please. Reporting comments you find offensive is enough without acting as your own vigilante and replying in kind to what you think you see as well.
So even Sceptre says FB's use of "buddy, pal" etc. is probably an attempt to inflame but no cards for FB.
I actually took some offense to Septre's post. It came across as very condescending (being on a high horse etc.) to be honest, and it doesn't make me feel great that he's also an administrator.
EDIT:
I decided to make a thread on the CT forums (after being told to go there several times by Scofflaw) entitled "Does boards.ie support totalitarian censorship?" and I provided several examples of why I believe it does, and guess what? Go on, take a guess. That's right!! The entire thread has been deleted with no mod notices, no reason given as to why it was deleted...nothing. It's as if it never existed, even though it had two replies last time I checked it.
The thread in question doesn't even show up in my "find all threads started by" thing. Did I just imagine making that thread and receiving two replies? One of which was from another mod btw.
Edit 2: I'd actually like whatever mod deleted that thread to come here and explain why they did so.0 -
fb, legend that he is, has seven pages of infractions. The latest of which was issued two days ago. Guess who issued it? You'll kick yourself! Bantams last ban- guess which forum? Guess which mod? I also hardly need to point out that fb is not a mod, and Donegalfella is.
Amazingly enough, four out of those seven pages contain infractions I've given him. Nice to think I'm contributing to a legend...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
demonspawn wrote: »... I decided to make a thread on the CT forums (after being told to go there several times by Scofflaw) entitled "Does boards.ie support totalitarian censorship?" and I provided several examples of why I believe it does, and guess what? Go on, take a guess. That's right!! The entire thread has been deleted with no mod notices, no reason given as to why it was deleted...nothing. It's as if it never existed, even though it had two replies last time I checked it....
Without ever going to the CT forum, I can understand why it was deleted. It was in the wrong place.0 -
Advertisement
-
demonspawn wrote: »Hey Scoff, was it you that deleted my thread in CT?
No - wasn't even aware you'd started one. You should have pointed me to it earlier, because it's a hoot.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »Without ever going to the CT forum, I can understand why it was deleted. It was in the wrong place.
What? It was a thread about a perceived conspiracy on boards to censor certain viewpoints by certain posters. Where should it have been posted, if not on CT? And why wasn't it just locked like every other thread that's deemed to be inappropriate? Why wasn't it moved? No, it was deleted completely with no notice, no PM sent to me explaining not to post things like that again.0 -
-
demonspawn wrote: »Well it's disappeared now and I'd like to know who deleted it and why. It's either bonkey, humanji, nesf, or yourself who deleted it.
And I've already said I wasn't even aware of it until just now - but why take my word for it?What? It was a thread about a perceived conspiracy on boards to censor certain viewpoints by certain posters. Where should it have been posted, if not on CT? And why wasn't it just locked like every other thread that's deemed to be inappropriate? Why wasn't it moved? No, it was deleted completely with no notice, no PM sent to me explaining not to post things like that again.
Yes, but CT is not about conspiracies on boards.ie - it's about the conspiracy theory of human history. The Fourth Reich thing, if you follow it properly, fits right in, because it posits that the EU is essentially the result of
a German plan made in the dying days of WW2 when it was obvious they'd lost the military attempt to dominate Europe, and instead substituted the EU.
A suggestion that boards.ie is suppressing left-wing posters, on the other hand, doesn't really aspire to that level - certainly we don't take ourselves that seriously.
The proper place, really, is Feedback, but by the time the thread had assembled the crew it had, and they'd said the things they'd said...it was more or less a "we hate Scofflaw" thread instead, and there's not really much new in that. Posters like MahatmaCoat do indeed cordially detest me, but I don't know whether there's any book in which that counts as evidence of a right-wing conspiracy on boards.ie - well, except a book hand-written in maybe green ink or crayon, obviously.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, but CT is not about conspiracies on boards.ie - it's about the conspiracy theory of human history. The Fourth Reich thing, if you follow it properly, fits right in, because it posits that the EU is essentially the result of
a German plan made in the dying days of WW2 when it was obvious they'd lost the military attempt to dominate Europe, and instead substituted the EU.
Oh, let's just make it up as we go along. CT is CT, regardless of what it involves. There is CT regarding things that will happen in the future, would these be deleted under you definition of CT? "it's about the conspiracy theory of human history"A suggestion that boards.ie is suppressing left-wing posters, on the other hand, doesn't really aspire to that level - certainly we don't take ourselves that seriously.
You really do take yourself that seriously.The proper place, really, is Feedback, but by the time the thread had assembled the crew it had, and they'd said the things they'd said...it was more or less a "we hate Scofflaw" thread instead, and there's not really much new in that.
I've already posted there. I'm compiling evidence as we speak. I wonder why a thread would degenerate so quickly into a "we hate Scofflaw" bashfest? You don't think it's because there's actually a bit of truth in what's being said here? Why didn't it just as easily turn into a "we hate nesf" thread? I don't recall ever naming anyone in that thread. But we can't know for sure now can we, seeing as it was completely removed from the forum.Posters like MahatmaCoat do indeed cordially detest me, but I don't know whether there's any book in which that counts as evidence of a right-wing conspiracy on boards.ie - well, except a book hand-written in maybe green ink or crayon, obviously.
More backhanded insults that yourself and FB have become quite well known for. Thanks for that. This is exactly why I believe you need to be removed as moderator for the politics/Soc forums.0 -
demonspawn wrote: »Oh, let's just make it up as we go along. CT is CT, regardless of what it involves. There is CT regarding things that will happen in the future, would these be deleted under you definition of CT? "it's about the conspiracy theory of human history"
I think that's made fairly clear in the forum charter, but it's up to the mods of the forum, obviously.demonspawn wrote: »You really do take yourself that seriously.
Certainly someone does.demonspawn wrote: »I've already posted there. I'm compiling evidence as we speak. I wonder why a thread would degenerate so quickly into a "we hate Scofflaw" bashfest? You don't think it's because there's actually a bit of truth in what's being said here? Why didn't it just as easily turn into a "we hate nesf" thread? I don't recall ever naming anyone in that thread. But we can't know for sure now can we, seeing as it was completely removed from the forum.
Luckily, I can read it. There's no particular surprise that a thread can turn into a "we hate Scofflaw" thread. I'm a moderator, I ban and infract people. Some of those people are less than reasonable, which is often why they've been banned or infracted in the first place. Since they can't see any fault in themselves, they assume I have some kind of grudge against them, or am just that kind of twat. If that sort of thing bothered me, I wouldn't moderate somewhere like Politics. Fortunately, and as I'm sure you'll agree, I have a pretty large ego, so it doesn't bother me very much - I rely on the other mods to notice if I've started stroking the white cat and monologuing.demonspawn wrote: »More backhanded insults that yourself and FB have become quite well known for. Thanks for that.
Again, I suspect you've taken that personally, whereas it's simply an expression of my view of conspiracy theorists. They're nuts, if you prefer a forehanded insult.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You're mistaken on a point of fact here. Not intentionally, I'm sure, but mistaken nonetheless. The "My advice to these people wold be:" (as it was posted) was included in both your original quote of the post and the report that you sent. The original post (FlutterinBantam's) which you quoted was made at 18:41. You quoted it in your reply at 18:48. You then reported it three minutes later at 18:51. All three records of the original post include the line. It hasn't been edited since you made a complaint. The other forum member could have edited it within two minutes of making the post, meaning it would have to be edited by 18:43 for no edit tag to have appeared on the original post. It's possible, if the other forum member edited the post within the two minute window, assuming you started reading the post within the two minute window and clicked "reply" post-edit while it was still on your screen in a version not containing an edit made within that two minute window, that an edited version would appear in the quoted section of your post, though that edited version would be there in its entirety in the post you clicked "submit reply" to. Also, if you'd clicked the back button twice subsequent to that in order to report it (or if you had two tabs open from before - and these are the only two possibilities), the pre-edit version would have appeared on your screen before reporting it but obviously the "new" version would already have existed. While that seems like vbulletin gymnastics, that's the only way it could have appeared to you as though the post was edited subsequently as there isn't an edit notice there - it has to have been edited before you made your reply and your report as that's how vbulletin works. That's assuming there was an edit at any point of course, but if there was it has to have been done at least five minutes before you slicked "submit post" on your reply and eight minutes before you reported the post.demonspawn wrote: »This post has been changed since I made a complaint, no edit notice on the post whatsoever. My quote of this post has also been altered. I'm a bit shocked actually, I went back to quote this to prove my point and it's been altered.
The line "My advise to these people would be::" was not in the original post.
It's possible for the two boards staff developers to have edited all three posts with direct access to the database without an edit notice appearing on the posts but it's rather stretching credulity to its limits to conceive of that happening in any circumstances, regardless of any belief. Definitely edited (if there was an edit) by 18:43 then.
The note about the "buddy, pal" thing by the way (I note you've used the word "mate" on the forum yourself in what to a casual observer might seem like similar circumstance ("try to keep up, mate")) is an on-thread observation intended for public consumption and note. I definitely think of it as idiotic but idiocy isn't a crime. It's probably (in my view) an attempt to inflame but frankly, in the greater scheme of things, there are usually bigger fish to fry. Hence the on-thread note.0 -
Again, I suspect you've taken that personally, whereas it's simply an expression of my view of conspiracy theorists. They're nuts, if you prefer a forehanded insult.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Good to see that a Cmod of that particular forum has such a kind view towards a substantial amount of posters in it. No conflict of interest there at all.. aren't you likely to brush aside any issue that those 'nutters' bring to your attention?0 -
Again, I suspect you've taken that personally, whereas it's simply an expression of my view of conspiracy theorists. They're nuts, if you prefer a forehanded insult.
cordially,
Scofflaw
No, I didn't take it personally at all. I merely pointed out that you seem to be unable to restrain yourself from insulting large groups of people that use these forums on a regular basis. You don't possess any of the qualities I would normally associate with a forum moderator, especially a forum that can be as potentially explosive as a politics forum. I think you need to step down tbh. Post all you want, but you shouldn't be a mod on that particular forum section.0 -
My name is URL wrote: »Good to see that a Cmod of that particular forum has such a kind view towards a substantial amount of posters in it. No conflict of interest there at all.. aren't you likely to brush aside any issue that those 'nutters' bring to your attention?
No, any more than I would be likely to refuse them entry to a bar. Being in certain particular ways nutty doesn't preclude being perfectly reasonable in many other ways - and even being completely mad across the board (so to speak) doesn't mean you shouldn't get the same treatment up front as anyone else.
If you think about it, what you'd be calling for there is a CMod who is a conspiracy theorist, because you don't agree with the idea that someone can CMod the forum who isn't.
On that, I have to point out that I'm also CMod for the Ladies' Lounge, despite not being a lady, of the LGBT forum despite being straight, etc etc.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No, any more than I would be likely to refuse them entry to a bar. Being in certain particular ways nutty doesn't preclude being perfectly reasonable in many other ways - and even being completely mad across the board (so to speak) doesn't mean you shouldn't get the same treatment up front as anyone else.
If you think about it, what you'd be calling for there is a CMod who is a conspiracy theorist, because you don't agree with the idea that someone can CMod the forum who isn't.
On that, I have to point out that I'm also CMod for the Ladies' Lounge, despite not being a lady, of the LGBT forum despite being straight, etc etc.
cordially,
Scofflaw
So if your personal opinion on transgender people was one which those people find insulting would you still share it despite the 'don't be a dick' rule? I'm sure your opinion on that particular issue is not one which is insulting towards that group of people, but can you see my point?0 -
No, any more than I would be likely to refuse them entry to a bar. Being in certain particular ways nutty doesn't preclude being perfectly reasonable in many other ways - and even being completely mad across the board (so to speak) doesn't mean you shouldn't get the same treatment up front as anyone else.
If you think about it, what you'd be calling for there is a CMod who is a conspiracy theorist, because you don't agree with the idea that someone can CMod the forum who isn't.
On that, I have to point out that I'm also CMod for the Ladies' Lounge, despite not being a lady, of the LGBT forum despite being straight, etc etc.
cordially,
Scofflaw
There's quite a large difference between being an impartial mod on a forum that you have little or no interest in and being the category mod on a forum where you are open hostile and abusive to the posters there. Maybe you don't see the difference but hopefully the admins do.0 -
demonspawn wrote: »No, I didn't take it personally at all. I merely pointed out that you seem to be unable to restrain yourself from insulting large groups of people that use these forums on a regular basis. You don't possess any of the qualities I would normally associate with a forum moderator, especially a forum that can be as potentially explosive as a politics forum. I think you need to step down tbh. Post all you want, but you shouldn't be a mod on that particular forum section.
That's a viewpoint you're entirely entitled to, of course, and if enough people share the view that I am a biased and unreasonable moderator, I'm sure I'll be requested to lay down the post. I have four co-mods who between them would presumably see my actions on a regular enough basis to make such a judgement, and to warn me if I'm stepping out of line.
As oscarBravo said earlier, many have complained that the boards.ie style of fairly forceful moderation will cause the site to vanish, and yet, here it is!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I have to say I find this sort of passive-aggressive attack particularly distasteful. "Gives the appearance"? What's that even supposed to mean?
He's not there 24/7 and he doesn't run the forum for his own benefit - the other Politics moderators would have a thing or two to say about it if he did. So less of the "seems" and "gives the appearance" crap - if you've something to say, say it, and if you've nothing to contribute but innuendo, don't bother. Feedback forum, not vague bitchy accusations forum. What do you propose - that we prevent moderators from actively contributing to forums they moderate? Because that's not going to happen.
Telling another poster his post, or parts thereof, is "crap" is not only unhelpful, but also is not an argument. Shame on you.
It is his feedback, giving his opinion. It may not be what you want to hear, but such language from you is not worthy of a reply, as using such language debases your contribution.
Courtesy costs nothing. And your lack of it shames you.0 -
Advertisement
-
My name is URL wrote: »So if your personal opinion on transgender people was one which those people find insulting would you still share it despite the 'don't be a dick' rule? I'm sure your opinion on that particular issue is not one which is insulting towards that group of people, but can you see my point?
Tell me - do you require me to have a good opinion of Fianna Fáil in order to mod or CMod the Politics section?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Telling another poster his post, or parts thereof, is "crap" is not only unhelpful, but also is not an argument. Shame on you.
It is his feedback, giving his opinion. It may not be what you want to hear, but such language from you is not worthy of a reply, as using such language debases your contribution.
Courtesy costs nothing.
I'm starting to think this attitude is shared by a few moderators here on boards. Shame really, it's a great site when you're actually allowed to post your opinions without fear of being beaten down with insults.0 -
demonspawn wrote: »There's quite a large difference between being an impartial mod on a forum that you have little or no interest in and being the category mod on a forum where you are open hostile and abusive to the posters there. Maybe you don't see the difference but hopefully the admins do.
Well, you see, I wouldn't post that opinion in the CT forum, because that would be being openly hostile and abusive to the posters there. But I see that you have chosen to quote my comment there, which I have to say I regard as completely out of order, since this is an entirely separate discussion.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Well, you see, I wouldn't post that opinion in the CT forum, because that would be being openly hostile and abusive to the posters there. But I see that you have chosen to quote my comment there, which I have to say I regard as completely out of order, since this is an entirely separate discussion.
regards,
Scofflaw
What difference does it make where you posted it? The fact is you clearly stated here that you think CTers are nutters and you're the category mod of Soc. I quoted what you said here on CT btw, I think they have a right to know.0 -
Tell me - do you require me to have a good opinion of Fianna Fáil in order to mod or CMod the Politics section?
cordially,
Scofflaw
No of course not, I just thought that your earlier comment was unnecessarily insulting to a lot of people who post in the CT forum. It's a forum which Boards obviously decided was warranted, and I don't think that general insults towards those who post in it are needed.. they get enough of that in the forum itself by non-mods!
I probably shouldn't have quoted you out of context to begin with, and have only now read the prior posts which were made. I still think the comment was unneeded however0 -
demonspawn wrote: »What difference does it make where you posted it? The fact is you clearly stated here that you think CTers are nutters and you're the category mod of Soc. I quoted what you said here on CT btw, I think they have a right to know.
And nobody appointed you to a position to make that decision. I think this has gone on long enough - it appears the way we do things isn't acceptable to you, so perhaps you and boards aren't really suited to each other.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
But I see that you have chosen to quote my comment there, which I have to say I regard as completely out of order, since this is an entirely separate discussion.
regards,
Scofflaw
Well, I think you posting it in the first place was completely out of order. That's why I quoted it.And nobody appointed you to a position to make that decision. I think this has gone on long enough - it appears the way we do things isn't acceptable to you, so perhaps you and boards aren't really suited to each other.
regards,
Scofflaw
Actually, I love posting on boards. It's pretty much all I do, so I think we're pretty well suited to each other. I only have one issue really, and I believe I've expressed that quite sufficiently.0 -
My name is URL wrote: »No of course not, I just thought that your earlier comment was unnecessarily insulting to a lot of people who post in the CT forum. It's a forum which Boards obviously decided was warranted, and I don't think that general insults towards those who post in it are needed.. they get enough of that in the forum itself by non-mods!
I probably shouldn't have quoted you out of context to begin with, and have only now read the prior posts which were made. I still think the comment was unneeded however
It's the reason I'm not a mod of CT, and don't post in CT - I wouldn't have the necessary patience. I'm not sure why that would prevent me from treating a complaint from CT fairly, since it's unlikely a poster would be asking me to judge whether their view of the Moon landings was true or not - I only need to see whether they were being disruptive, or the mod heavy-handed, or whatever the case may be about. I'm unlikely even to know whether they post as a conspiracy theorist or a sceptic.
Neither I, nor anyone else, can be perfectly disinterested in every topic that might come up in a forum, let alone in all the Soc forums. The question is whether it affects moderation, and for cases where one feels that has happened, there is a Dispute Resolution Procedure in which you can first side-step me, and then appeal over my head.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
To be blunt about it, what you're doing with that generally screams "pissed off user throwing plop in every avenue possible". Usually people use the pram/toys analogy to describe such behaviour but the poo-flinging analogy seems more appropriate to me in this case. I suggest you're better off making your case rather than (presumably) some sort of mob-rousing but it's your nickel to use wisely or less wisely I guess.demonspawn wrote: »What difference does it make where you posted it? The fact is you clearly stated here that you think CTers are nutters and you're the category mod of Soc. I quoted what you said here on CT btw, I think they have a right to know.
I'm probably safe in assuming that there isn't a single Irish contributor to the Politics forum who doesn't have an opinion on FF. And probably on the rest of the Irish political parties as well. There are probably few people on the island who don't have an opinion on FF or most of the Irish political parties. Some of the US contributors in the US Politics subsection probably don't have an opinion on FF I guess. A good moderator doesn't allow their own beliefs to influence their moderation decisions - expecting someone to be without opinion is hoping for something that doesn't exist.demonspawn wrote: »I think a good politics mod wouldn't have an opinion on FF, and if they did they wouldn't abuse their mod status to abuse non-supporters of FF.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement