Mods infracting on threads they are active participants in.

OhNoYouDidn't

Hello,

Wondering if it is considered appropriate or acceptible for a mod, in this case OscarBravo, to delete posts and hand out infractions in a thread (s)he is actively involved in a series of debates in.

This is twice OB has infracted me, once with a ban, after a robust exchange of views on the national question. There is a thread on the politics forum today that OB is stuck into and getting down and dirty with other posters.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056056242

Is it right that (s)he gets to deltete posts and dish out infractions, seemingly just to the other side of the arguement, when they are actively involved in the thread? Should there even be a veneer of impartiality?

---

Edit - OB directed me here rather than discuss it via PM, as I am sure is his right.

Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hello,

Wondering if it is considered appropriate or acceptible for a mod, in this case OscarBravo, to delete posts and hand out infractions in a thread (s)he is actively involved in a series of debates in.

This is twice OB has infracted me, once with a ban, after a robust exchange of views on the national question. There is a thread on the politics forum today that OB is stuck into and getting down and dirty with other posters.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056056242

Is it right that (s)he gets to deltete posts and dish out infractions, seemingly just to the other side of the arguement, when they are actively involved in the thread? Should there even be a veneer of impartiality?

---

Edit - OB directed me here rather than discuss it via PM, as I am sure is his right.

This is the post that was infracted:

OhNoYouDidn't wrote:

Red card within one minute for calling the Tans scumbags. No santcion for calling the dissidents the same.

Hmmmm.

The reason given for the infraction is "Breach of Forum Charter". Given what you're doing is commenting on moderation on thread, which is against the Charter, that seems pretty open and shut to me.

As for the more general objection to mods moderating on threads they're actively involved in - in most cases we tend to be more lenient with questionable posts if we're involved in the thread, for exactly the reason that we'd be uncertain of our objectivity. Indeed it goes a ittle beyond that - in that thread, for example, there have been a couple of reported posts that I've looked at, which had they been directed at another poster I would have infracted, but given they've been directed at oscarBravo, and he hasn't objected to them, I have left uninfracted as well.

You appear to be making the claim that this infraction is partial or biased modding on what is, in fact, a very clear-cut breach of the forum charter - I think if you're going to claim bias, you'd need something a little less open and shut than that. Can you provide such an example?

moderately,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

My infracton was probably deserved, my objection is that it was given to me by someone who was at the time aggressively debating a point with me and it looks petty.

The substantive issue is the use of the word 'scum'. Allowed when used to describe the dissidents whom he was attacking but an indictable offence when used to describe the black and tans whom he was defending.

Should mods who as clearly lost their temper as OB did in that thread when taking on the world really be dispensing infractions to those who he disagrees with while not giving them out to those he agrees with for the same offence?

Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My infracton was probably deserved, my objection is that it was given to me by someone who was at the time aggressively debating a point with me and it looks petty.

The substantive issue is the use of the word 'scum'. Allowed when used to describe the dissidents whom he was attacking but an indictable offence when used to describe the black and tans whom he was defending.

Should mods who as clearly lost their temper as OB did in that thread when taking on the world really be dispensing infractions to those who he disagrees with while not giving them out to those he agrees with for the same offence?

If you could show that to be the case, it would certainly be worth looking into. However, I've gone through 15 pages of that thread, and there are exactly three uses of the word 'scum' or 'scumbag'. All of them were made by posters attacking the RIRA, and all of them were infracted by oscarBravo.

There have been no infractions issued on that thread for the use of the word by republican posters.

That directly and completely contradicts what you're claiming, wouldn't you agree?

moderately,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

For clarity, I issued a warning for this post, which used the term to refer to the Black & Tans.

OhNoYouDidn't

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you could show that to be the case, it would certainly be worth looking into. However, I've gone through 15 pages of that thread, and there are exactly three uses of the word 'scum' or 'scumbag'. All of them were made by posters attacking the RIRA, and all of them were infracted by oscarBravo.

Before or after I opened this thread?

Scofflaw wrote: »

There have been no infractions issued on that thread for the use of the word by republican posters.

OB disagrees below. In fact you could read that he did not do the above from his statement.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That directly and completely contradicts what you're claiming, wouldn't you agree?

Not really - did OB infract and when did he do so. He had not when I opened this thread.

Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Before or after I opened this thread?



OB disagrees below. In fact you could read that he did not do the above from his statement.

Accepting that point leaves us with a 2:1 ratio of anti-Republican to Republican posts infracted for the term 'scum', which still directly and completely contradicts your claim that oscarBravo preferentially infracted Republican posters.

Not really - did OB infract and when did he do so. He had not when I opened this thread.

The other infractions are by oscarBravo, and are timestamped 17.34 on the 9th and 19.55 on the 10th. This thread starts at 16.46 on the 11th.

moderately,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

Ok, I can't stand over the timeline issue and withdraw it.

But the substantive point remains. Should a moderator be deleting posts and moderating on a topic they are so passionately (and aggressively) debating? There is a well established political bias on that forum which is one thing, but surely there should be some level of impartiality?

Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Ok, I can't stand over the timeline issue and withdraw it.

But the substantive point remains. Should a moderator be deleting posts and moderating on a topic they are so passionately (and aggressively) debating? There is a well established political bias on that forum which is one thing, but surely there should be some level of impartiality?

I have to say that not only can you not stand over the timeline issue, but you also can't stand over the original claim that the moderator was preferentially infracting republican posters - which forms the core of your substantive point.

Given that's the case, do you have any example to offer of where a moderator's involvement in a thread has led to clearly biased moderation?

And do you have any evidence to offer of the "well established political bias on that forum"?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

I am marking this thread as resolved