Moderator issue

demonspawn

A moderator recently started a thread about an opinion poll in the Irish Economy subsection on the politics forum. The thread was misleading from the start and no discussion material was put forward in the original post.

I decided to point out the problems with such a post and had some of my posts deleted completely with no explanation why, had intimidating and insulting private messages sent to me, and I think this is absolutely uncalled for.

I reported the thread for the misleading title and nothing was done.

This is the thread in question.

The moderator in question has already given me two yellow cards today for minor perceived infractions and I feel he has some kind of vendetta against me.

This was the first card given and his reason was "Inappropriate Language/Unfunny joke". I asked what language was inappropriate and he replied it was racist, which is ridiculous if you read any of my previous posts in that thread. I even clearly stated it was a joke.

If he's got a problem with me personally that's fine. If he wants to use his moderator status to keep me out of a thread he started just because I disagree with him then that's not so fine.

Zaph

Complaints about moderation should follow the Dispute Resolution Procedure. You can find full details here.

demonspawn

Zaph wrote: »

Complaints about moderation should follow the Dispute Resolution Procedure. You can find full details here.

Great, so what do I do when the moderator in question deals with complaints?

Zaph

As mentioned in the link, you should PM their co-mod. If there isn't one or you'd prefer not to discuss the matter with them, PM the appropriate CMods instead. When contacting the CMods, I suggest you include all of them on the PM, in case any of them are away.

nesf

I'm passing this along to the Admins as I'm also a mod of that forum and as such am not unbiased in the matter.

For what it's worth, I think you deserved both infractions for posting crap in a serious forum. The towels and nappies comment was especially deserving, it's the equivalent of making a ****** comment and adding afterwards that "oh by the way I'm not a racist".

demonspawn

Just for the record, I've now been banned by the moderator in question for an unrelated issue. I posted a documentary called The Fourth World War (IMDB link) in a thread entitled "EU stopped World War Three" in the EU subsection. I posted the video to try and back up a claim I had made in the thread.

It's a documentary about various uprisings around the world which supports the idea that we are already facing the third or fourth world war. It obviously offended this moderator to the point that he deleted the whole post, even though I gave a very clear warning in bold print as to the graphic nature of the film.

"Post by demonspawn containing video of unpleasant and graphic CT rubbish deleted, poster banned for a week.

Keep the CT stuff for CT.

moderately,
********"

Pretty ironic that I should be banned from the forum and accused of posting CT in a thread entitled EU Stopped World War Three. I don't really expect anything to be done about this, I would just like it as a record for the next time the moderator in question gets a bit ban happy. This was nothing more than an unreasonable ban by an unreasonable mod.

bonkey

demonspawn...I've commented on your thread in the CT forum asking whether or not you wish to discuss the issue here, or abandon this and claim its all a conspiracy there.

That aside however....

demonspawn wrote: »

had intimidating and insulting private messages sent to me, and I think this is absolutely uncalled for.

Intimidating and insulting private messages are absolutely uncalled for, regardless of who they come from. There is a facility to report PMs. Please use this to report them, so that I can review them.

r3nu4l

Hi demonspawn, i'll deal with this complaint for you.

demonspawn wrote: »

This is the thread in question.

Okay, in this case the moderator was correct to ask you to refrain from comments on the 'fourth reich'. We do have a conspiracy theories forum that welcomes such comments and threads but the politics forum is not the place for them. Scofflaw advised you of this.

This was the first card given and his reason was "Inappropriate Language/Unfunny joke". I asked what language was inappropriate and he replied it was racist, which is ridiculous if you read any of my previous posts in that thread. I even clearly stated it was a joke.

Well in fairness there's plenty of jokes out there about people who are of African origin, they go by the name of 'n1gger' jokes. Many don't find them funny at all. The same goes for 'jokes' about Muslims/Arabs and referring to them as ragheads, towelheads etc... by the way it's normally Sikhs that are the subject of nappy-on-the-head jokes.
Anyway, again, the politics forum is not the place for those jokes.

So far, neither of these instances represent a moderator who has a problem with you, moreso a mod who wants to keep the forum working the way it should.

demonspawn wrote: »

Just for the record, I've now been banned by the moderator in question for an unrelated issue. I posted a documentary called The Fourth World War (IMDB link) in a thread entitled "EU stopped World War Three" in the EU subsection. I posted the video to try and back up a claim I had made in the thread.

It's a documentary about various uprisings around the world which supports the idea that we are already facing the third or fourth world war. It obviously offended this moderator to the point that he deleted the whole post, even though I gave a very clear warning in bold print as to the graphic nature of the film.

"Post by demonspawn containing video of unpleasant and graphic CT rubbish deleted, poster banned for a week.

Keep the CT stuff for CT.

moderately,
********"

Pretty ironic that I should be banned from the forum and accused of posting CT in a thread entitled EU Stopped World War Three. I don't really expect anything to be done about this, I would just like it as a record for the next time the moderator in question gets a bit ban happy. This was nothing more than an unreasonable ban by an unreasonable mod.

I feel that the thread in question had a purpose in the EU forum in that it questioned the assertion that the origins of the EU was purely economic. The OP quoted a post by the mod in question (Scofflaw) stating that the origins were political. Such a thread would also be at home in the CT forum but was suitable too for the EU forum providing such debate was kept purely in the realms of fact and not supposition.

You posted the first part of a video of eight parts. Having watched the video it is not really relevant to the thread in my opinion. It is in fact a conspiracy theorists video, made by conspiracy theorists for conspiracy theorists.

As you had previously been warned about CT stuff in political threads I can say that on this occasion the ban was justified in my opinion.

If you want to tell the world about how the EU is nothing more than a new Fourth Reich and how certain interest groups want to control our lives then please use the conspiracy theories forum.

Ban stands and I find no evidence so far of the mod having a vendetta against you. The moment I do see such evidence in future I will overturn those mod actions but in these cases outlined above the mod acted correctly.

EDIT: Just to say, I agree with bonkey, please report the insulting PM.

demonspawn

I've just received a yellow card from mod djpbarry regarding a post I made here five days ago. Djpbarry has clearly shown his support for Scofflaw and the other mods on the "moderators" thread on the feedback forum and I think this is just a deliberate attempt to find any post they can to give me an infraction. I may just be paranoid but I seriously doubt it.

As far as my other concerns, I'm not looking for any action to be taken or anyone from this site to take my side. In fact, I'd be shocked at this stage if anything did actually happen.

I've resigned myself to the fact that mods here hold the power and most will back each other up regardless of the situation so I'll just keep that in mind when by ban is up. Thanks for your replies, but they were completely unnecessary.

demonspawn

r3nu4l wrote: »

Well in fairness there's plenty of jokes out there about people who are of African origin, they go by the name of 'n1gger' jokes. Many don't find them funny at all. The same goes for 'jokes' about Muslims/Arabs and referring to them as ragheads, towelheads etc... by the way it's normally Sikhs that are the subject of nappy-on-the-head jokes.
Anyway, again, the politics forum is not the place for those jokes.

Yes, that infraction in particular was rather bizarre. Anyone who had been following that thread knows I meant absolutely no disrespect to the Muslim community. I made several post explaining my position on the subject, I was even thanked by another mod (Overheal) for my posts. Here's a post I made on the page previous the the comment I received an infraction for.

There really is no debate. Not allowing the community center, which also includes a mosque, is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. But then the Bill of Rights has been used as a doormat for years now.

And this is the actual comment I made. Inappropriate, but not worthy of a yellow card, especially considering some of the anti-Muslim bile that was being spewed on that thread.

Everyone knows the Sufi wear towels on their head and the Wahabi wear nappies!
That was a joke by the way, I'm not a bigot. lol

I'm sure if you look back through the posts I made on that thread you will clearly see that particular yellow card was completely unwarranted. Scofflaw will give me an infraction for any breach of the charter without using common sense to determine if it was an intended breach. To put it simply, he's out to get me and will go out of his way to make sure I get a card or ban for every single infraction.

demonspawn

After a discussion through PM with djpbarry about my most recent infraction, I received this private message.

Surprisingly enough, mods have lives outside of boards, so no, I don't have the time to check every thread every day.

You might also want to bear in mind that PM's are not exempt from the general site rules, so I'd lose the attitude if I were you.

Which was a reply to:

Originally Posted by demonspawn
Ah, I see. So you only check threads every few days to make sure they haven't descended into a complete flame war. Excellent modding there, maybe you do need help from posters after all.

oscarBravo

I'm assuming that's not the "intimidating and insulting" PM you referred to in your opening post, which you have yet to report.

As for djpbarry's PM, (a) we don't require moderators to read every thread every day, and (b) he's correct, we expect civility in private messages.

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm assuming that's not the "intimidating and insulting" PM you referred to in your opening post, which you have yet to report.

As for djpbarry's PM, (a) we don't require moderators to read every thread every day, and (b) he's correct, we expect civility in private messages.

Ok, here's Scofflaw's PM he sent when I posted on his pointless thread, which I reported several times by the way and nothing was done.

In case I'm not getting through to you here, let me make this very clear - if what you want to do is question reality, you should go to the CT forum. If you continue doing it in the Politics forum, you'll get banned, because I'm not interested in having Politics threads derailed by someone's inability to tell fantasy and reality apart.

moderately,
Scofflaw

This is what I said in the report I just made.

I took this as a threat to ban me if I continue posting on Scofflaw's threads. "Question reality"? People question reality every day, some people even make a career for themselves questioning reality...they're called investigative journalists. The last comment is clearly just an insult meant to demean me.

I'd like to point out that "reality" is subjective. I clearly have a different perspective on life to Scofflaw, so my "reality" is quite different. Threatening to ban me because of my perspective is completely unfair. That's your intimidating/threatening PM. When he actually banned me the reason given was "repeated idiocy" so that's your insulting PM.

Oscarbravo, seeing as you've taken this up personally, perhaps you can explain where nesf's post is regarding this matter? This is the PM I received from nesf when I made a complaint to him about Scofflaw 24 hours before I was banned from politics:

Posted a reply in that thread detailing my view and why this should be dealt with by the Admins not by me.

So where's this reply from nesf?

oscarBravo

demonspawn wrote: »

So where's this reply from nesf?

It's visible now.

I'm also a Politics mod, so I'll let another admin adjudicate.

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's visible now.

I'm also a Politics mod, so I'll let another admin adjudicate.

So you were happy enough to let a relevant moderator's comment go unposted until I brought it up? Interesting. Can I add that to my list of grievances?

oscarBravo

demonspawn wrote: »

So you were happy enough to let a relevant moderator's comment go unposted until I brought it up? Interesting. Can I add that to my list of grievances?

If it makes you feel better, sure.

Sometimes moderators post background information in a dispute that isn't necessarily intended as a public contribution to a Help Desk thread. I made the mistake of assuming that that was nesf's intention here - mea culpa.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it makes you feel better, sure.

Sometimes moderators post background information in a dispute that isn't necessarily intended as a public contribution to a Help Desk thread. I made the mistake of assuming that that was nesf's intention here - mea culpa.

For the record I never post here unless I want it to be public. If I wanted to make a private point I'd use PM.

demonspawn

So I've just been banned from the Atheist & Agnostic forum for expressing my opinions. The moderator chose to publicly threaten to ban me on the thread instead of in a PM, then banned me for arguing with them about that threat on the thread.

robindch

FYI -

Dades has temp banned demonspawn from Atheism and Agnosticism forum not for delivering a series of mildly entertaining, but splendidly off-topic PCT's (though that did happen), but for delivering a series of grapeshot insults and then ignoring the two or three increasingly blunt warnings to cut it out.

The ban note is here.

demonspawn

So I have now been PMed by the other moderator of A&A, robindch, quoting a private message I sent to Dades. This is completely unacceptable and I feel it should be investigated. What I say in a PM to Dades has nothing to do with any of the other mods in that forum. If Dades has an issue with something I said in a PM, he should report it just like everyone else is expected to.

I'd also like to add that robindch openly insulted me in the thread, refering to me as a "pyramidiot" regarding my beliefs expressed in that thread. This is completely inappropriate behavior for a moderator.

Administrators should really review who they allow to moderate these forums. It's become painfully obvious that certain moderators think they can interpret the rules to suit themselves.

oscarBravo

Just some food for thought: if you are repeatedly falling foul of moderators across the website, has it ever crossed your mind to wonder what the common denominator is?

demonspawn

robindch wrote: »

FYI -

Dades has temp banned demonspawn from Atheism and Agnosticism forum not for delivering a series of mildly entertaining, but splendidly off-topic PCT's (though that did happen), but for delivering a series of grapeshot insults and then ignoring the two or three increasingly blunt warnings to cut it out.

The ban note is here.

Would you care to address the direct insult towards me in your post, calling me a "pyramidiot"? Do you think that was acceptable behavior from a moderator of that forum? Do you think a comment like that is likely to get someone's back up?

Please don't talk to me about rules, you obviously have a very limited grasp of them yourself.

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just some food for thought: if you are repeatedly falling foul of moderators across the website, has it ever crossed your mind to wonder what the common denominator is?

Yes, I've thought about it. I received a warning from Dades earlier in that thread for inappropriate language and I accepted that warning. I even publicly apologized on that thread for any offense caused.

I've been banned from AH for inappropriate language and accepted that ban. I was at fault and have no excuse.

If you'd like you can have moderators of forums where I've posted come here and give their opinion of my posts. I'd say the vast majority will agree that I make constructive posts and benefit the threads in which I post, with some exceptions obviously. I'll even list the forums I visit and you can speak to those mods privately if you wish.

My issue here is certain mods who seem to abuse their power, this certainly seems to be the case here. I was trolled in that thread in the middle of a civil discussion, unfortunately I took the bait, and was then publicly threatened with a ban and goaded by the moderator in the same post.

demonspawn, let me be clear on this.

If you continue to make blanket insults about the users of this forum, I will ban you. You've been entertained far more than your posts deserve, and you still haven't grasped what an atheist is.

Dades has repeatedly made this claim that I don't know what an atheist is and that I am, in fact, an atheist. I quoted the definition of atheist and everyone on the thread agreed that each person has their own definition. Why did Dades feel the need to add this to the post if not to incite an argument? An argument I was subsequently banned for having I might add.

oscarBravo

demonspawn wrote: »

Please don't talk to me about rules, you obviously have a very limited grasp of them yourself.

This forum isn't an arena for you to continue a spat from elsewhere. If you want to complain about a moderator's actions, follow the dispute resolution procedure.

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

This forum isn't an arena for you to continue a spat from elsewhere. If you want to complain about a moderator's actions, follow the dispute resolution procedure.

This thread has become about moderators on this site in general. I believe it's quite relevant to the discussion. I believe admins need to keep a tighter reign on their moderators, as some seem to think they can do or say what they like with impunity.

oscarBravo

demonspawn wrote: »

This thread has become about moderators on this site in general. I believe it's quite relevant to the discussion. I believe admins need to keep a tighter reign on their moderators, as some seem to think they can do or say what they like with impunity.

You don't get to start Help Desk threads about moderators in general. If you have a problem with a moderator decision, follow the dispute resolution procedure; in other words, contact the category moderators.

Trojan

[under review]

I'm rescinding the closing of the thread purely on the basis that the admin in question was marginally involved in the original case by virtue of modding the local forum. (I am not implying in any way that closing the thread was incorrect, and it may be re-closed immediately if that is the correct decision.)

r3nu4l, you seem to be uninvolved in the local forums mentioned above, can you take a look and make a ruling on this thread?

r3nu4l

I'll review this thread in detail later today. I've quite a bit going on elsewhere (outside of boards.ie) that is taking priority.

Dades

If anyone needs clarification from me, I'm about.

r3nu4l

Okay, I've had some time to review: Wall of text alert!!

Before I start, please don't accuse me of backing mods etc. Only last week I issued a 7 day ban from the Call of Duty forum to a mod for personal abuse. I don't do protectionism!

Issue 1: Scofflaw yellow card warning for joke about Islamic headscarves
Decision: I uphold the warning and have explained why earlier. I understand that you are not anti-Islamic but the politics forum wasn't the place for that joke. It's a warning, nothing more. It stays.

Issue 2: Scofflaw red card and ban relating to posting of a 'WWIV' video. Decision: You had previously been warned in the main politics forum that Conspiracy theory content was unsuitable for politics and that it should be kept to the relevant Conspiracy Theories forum. The red card and ban stays. I have no issue with the content of the video and the ban is NOT because of the violent or graphic nature of the video. The ban is in place because you were asked to keep Conspiracy Theory material to the relevant forum but you didn't. You made a very tenuous link to the thread content and then took the opportunity to post CT material despite being told not to.

Issue 3: djpbarry hands out yellow card for backseat modding.
Decision: I do have some sympathy for you here. There's nothing worse than a poster who just argues constantly for no apparent reason other than to argue. However, that's what the report post button is for. In this case you definitely were getting personal, were off-topic (in that particular post) and to be honest it can be construed as back-seat modding. I personally probably wouldn't have infracted/warned for that post but many others would. I use on-thread warnings a bit more. Either way, I can see why the warning was made and I uphold that decision from the mod.


Issue 4: The 'insulting and intimidating' PM from Scofflaw
Decision:

The PM.

Scofflaw wrote:

In case I'm not getting through to you here, let me make this very clear - if what you want to do is question reality, you should go to the CT forum. If you continue doing it in the Politics forum, you'll get banned, because I'm not interested in having Politics threads derailed by someone's inability to tell fantasy and reality apart.

moderately,
Scofflaw

A difficult one imo. CT stuff is not suitable for Politics, we've covered that. What Scofflaw was trying to say was "Any more CT stuff and I'll ban you from politics". This is clear to me.

Scofflaw's warning to you to stop posting CT material or face a ban is perfectly legitimate and I'm happy with it. It's not intimidating, that's what a mod is supposed to do.

However, I do think it's insulting to accuse a poster of being unable to tell fantasy and reality apart. I don't like that at all. I'd ask Scofflaw to reconsider his wording in 'Official PMs' in future instances.

Issue 5: Oscarbravo not approving the comment from nesf.
Decision: To be honest, I saw it and didn't approve it either. It adds nothing to the thread other than saying, I'll let the Admins handle this and I agree with the ban. No explanations, no in-depth analysis. Nothing. A simple hand-over. The post has been approved so you can see it now.

Moderator on-thread warnings (A&A forum)
Decision: A moderator is perfectly entitled to warn you on-thread regarding behaviour and is absolutely entitled to tell you that if such behaviour continues you will be banned for it. You want the threat of a ban sent by PM. That's not how it works. On-thread warning serve to ensure that the poster sees the warning. Not everyone checks their PMs before returning to a hotly debated thread to post.

On-thread warnings also serve to let everyone know that the mods are active in the thread. They also serve in cases like this where the mod can clearly show when and where they intervened and it's done publicly. On the one hand we have groups of people on this site calling for accountability, communication and transparency (all of which is covered by an on-thread warning) and on the other we have users like yourself who want it all done behind the scenes.
In this instance the on-thread warnings were deserved.


Issue 7: Ban from Atheism and Agnosticism
Partial Decision: It's always difficult to keep a cool head when you have lots of posters attacking your posts. That I can understand. Taking the bait from trolls is never good. Either ignore the bait threads or report them for baiting.

Can you point out where you feel you were personally abused on that thread? I'd like to review that.

You did get personal:

demonspawn wrote:

Must be a miserably boring life being an atheist

demonspawn wrote:

Act like a grown up and do it yourself

These are just two examples of pejorative and insulting posts from you. You were warned by the mod to cool it or you'd be banned. You then proceeded to argue with the moderator on-thread. Arguing a mod decision/action on-thread is enough to get a ban. In this instance given the arguing on-thread and the insulting behaviour, the ban is warranted and stands.

Issue 8: Personal abuse from a moderator
Decision: You were not directly called a pyramidiot by robin. He was referring to satirising a group of people, collectively known as 'pyramidiots'. However, it's close to the bone and a cutting remark. I'd prefer if mods didn't do this in future. It may be an 'accepted' term but only in some circles.

Issue 9: Goading from Dades
As you say, lots of people have their own opinions of what defines 'Atheist'. I think that a warning from a moderator should be just that and not contain other comments. A warning should not also contain a dig at other posters. I'd ask Dades to consider that in future. However, in this case I think that the comment was not necessarily 'goading' but more a post made from frustration.

Issue 10: Admin control on mods

demonspawn wrote:

I believe admins need to keep a tighter reign on their moderators, as some seem to think they can do or say what they like with impunity.

Decision: So far from all of your complaints I've had very minor comments to make about moderators. Your behaviour has led to mod action and I've agreed with every mod action. In general I find moderation on boards.ie to be excellent. There will always be exceptions and when there are some mods hold their hands up and reverse their decisions, others don't and it goes to the CMod and eventually, the Helpdesk.

My comment to you is that I'd like you to think about whether boards.ie offers what you want from a forum. If it doesn't then you can stop posting at any time or even have your account closed. If it does, then look at how you interact with the mods. They are required by the Admins to ensure that forums run smoothly and they do that very well and with pride. I don't see us changing that but there will always be room for us to learn.

I hope that where I have made a comment about moderator action that they take it in the spirit in which it's meant.

Those are my decisions. They are NOT open for further debate.


Thread remains open until demonspawn comes back with an answer to this question:

Issue 7:
Can you point out where you feel you were personally abused on that thread? I'd like to review that.


This is the only other point I want discussed. If there was abuse I'd like to see then whether the mods also warned other users on-thread or whether demonspawn alone was singled out for warnings.

Asiaprod

demonspawn wrote: »

So I have now been PMed by the other moderator of A&A, robindch, quoting a private message I sent to Dades. This is completely unacceptable and I feel it should be investigated. What I say in a PM to Dades has nothing to do with any of the other mods in that forum. If Dades has an issue with something I said in a PM, he should report it just like everyone else is expected to.

I'll be looking into that one for you.