Double standards on the Politics forum?

Rebelheart

A poster responded to a post I made with:

'The above is 100% waffle and is even more condescending and inaccurate than a typical FF opinion! And that's saying something!' (here)

I responded with:

'For somebody with 11,017 posts (and counting), I bow to your inestimable authority on the subject of "waffle" and "condescending" posts.' (here)

The moderator then intervened to state:

'Rebelheart has been banned for straying into personal attack territory' (here)

Now, if a ban is warranted for me (and I don't believe it is), why does the initiator of this exchange remain unbanned?

GuanYin

The actions I take against other members of the forum are between the moderation team and the poster the action was taken against.

In some cases, a poster's banning is announced when the incident is an obvious breach of the rules and serves to escalate tension on the thread. This serves two purposes A) to notify other posters that they will not be able to continue the exchange and to inform posters that these posts will not be tolerated.


For the record you are not the only person sanctioned on that thread, I did post my warning immediately after your banning to discourage further degradation on the thread while I went about moderating other posts, which is why you are the only one mentioned in the post. However, to remove the illusion that you are the sole member sanctioned, I will edit the post to remove your name.

That said, as with all bannings, ultimately, you were banned for your actions and your actions are the ones which we should be discussing.

AntiMatter

Well, he did attack the post and you, arguably, attacked the poster.

It seems you got beat on semantics.

Wolfe Tone

Does the wee little colored card not give the game away?

Rebelheart

GuanYin wrote: »

The actions I take against other members of the forum are between the moderation team and the poster the action was taken against.

In some cases, a poster's banning is announced when the incident is an obvious breach of the rules and serves to escalate tension on the thread. This serves two purposes A) to notify other posters that they will not be able to continue the exchange and to inform posters that these posts will not be tolerated.


For the record you are not the only person sanctioned on that thread, I did post my warning immediately after your banning to discourage further degradation on the thread while I went about moderating other posts, which is why you are the only one mentioned in the post. However, to remove the illusion that you are the sole member sanctioned, I will edit the post to remove your name.

That said, as with all bannings, ultimately, you were banned for your actions and your actions are the ones which we should be discussing.

This thread would not be necessary if it had been made clear in the thread that fairness was exercised and that one poster was not singled out. In contrast, what was said in the thread was that only one poster was banned, when there was clearly more than one poster involved. When I went back I saw neither a warning nor an infraction on the other poster's post. In fact, scratch all that: a quick look in a moment ago and he's still posting in the same thread, despite initiating an attack on me. How is this impartial and fair moderating?

It's important that fairness be perceived to be done because if it's not it brings the impartiality of moderators into question. It would have been so simple to be seen to be fair. As such, it really is, with all due respect, your actions which we should be discussing in this thread.

GuanYin

Fine. My actions are as follows.

The poster you were interacting with dismissed the contents of your post as "waffle".

Not my favorite type of retort, rather childish, but there is a limit to the quality control I can exercise on a poster's posting.

Your response was to make a general comment about the poster, not just his posts.

Even if you had reported his post (the ONLY acceptable way to respond to a post you take issue with), the most I would do under such circumstances is prod the poster to explain exactly why he thought it was waffle, with facts and dissection of point. Something you yourself could have done to defend your viewpoint.

So yeah, my actions are based on this: (A) Attack the post = OK... (B)attack the poster and his entire contribution to boards.ie = Not OK.

A=/=B.

You got banned, he didn't.

Any further issue should really be in the dispute resolution process.

Rebelheart

GuanYin wrote: »

Fine. My actions are as follows.

The poster you were interacting with dismissed the contents of your post as "waffle".

Not my favorite type of retort, rather childish, but there is a limit to the quality control I can exercise on a poster's posting.

Your response was to make a general comment about the poster, not just his posts.

Even if you had reported his post (the ONLY acceptable way to respond to a post you take issue with), the most I would do under such circumstances is prod the poster to explain exactly why he thought it was waffle, with facts and dissection of point. Something you yourself could have done to defend your viewpoint.

So yeah, my actions are based on this: (A) Attack the post = OK... (B)attack the poster and his entire contribution to boards.ie = Not OK.

A=/=B.

You got banned, he didn't.

Any further issue should really be in the dispute resolution process.

If you want to play at semantics how is: 'For somebody with 11,017 posts (and counting), I bow to your inestimable authority on the subject of "waffle" and "condescending" posts.' "attacking" the poster.

I was merely lauding his authority and expertise on the areas in question, just as he was merely attacking that post I had written and not making any implicit personal attack on me.

Wolfe Tone

The way I picked it up was that he is obv on boards more than RH and would thus know more about condescending posts.

GuanYin

Rebelheart wrote: »

Then if you want to play at semantics how is: 'For somebody with 11,017 posts (and counting), I bow to your inestimable authority on the subject of "waffle" and "condescending" posts.' "attacking" the poster.

I was merely lauding his authority and expertise on the areas in question, just as he was merely attacking that post I had written and not making any implicit personal attack on me.

If you want the ban overturned or action against the poster, the dispute resolution process is the way to go.

If they feel I have acted incorrectly, your ban may be overturned.

While it's in my hands, I feel the intent of your comment is clear and the ban stands.

Rebelheart

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The way I picked it up was that he is obv on boards more than RH and would thus know more about condescending posts.

Thank you, Mussolini. That's precisely what I meant.

Wolfe Tone

Rebelheart wrote: »

Thank you, Mussolini. That's precisely what I meant.

Thats why I thanked it, I didnt view it as a personal attack, merely a witty response.

gandalf

The post you are questioning is in response to this post of yours Rebelheart

Only your average deluded Blueshirt (apology for the tautology) or Sticky hates Sinn Féin. Jealousy big-time, whether it's having passionate supporters, idealism and romanticism in heaps, meeting the President of the US, being world famous ... all those shallow things are precisely the values which these two crowds of absolute losers love. And losers they, particularly the Blueshirts, certainly are: despite the tsunami in Irish politics Fine Gael is now only 2% higher in the polls than they were in the 2002 election. Why? Because Fine Gael is incapable of being anything more than a party representing a sectional interest. Its politicians are more interested in having notions of big farmer/shopkeeper moral superiority than in being a serious alternative government. The smugness, the delusions of sophistication, the inability to abandon its West Brit background and become a truly modern Irish and European party.

And let's not forget this Fine Gael and Labour jealousy in the heat of political campaigns. Like when the Sinn Féin machine gets going with thousands of posters being put up by its large number of passionate activists around an area on an evening in response to a political event the Blueshirts and smoked salmon socialists get most animated. Why? Because the political parties of the big farmers and the born-again smoked salmon socialists are out wining and dining - just how many alcoholics are in conservative political parties like Fine Gael? - and talking about their next radio appearance when Sinn Féin is rocking the boat in their constituencies and demanding that they up their game. Sinn Féin will get the vote out in working class areas which neither of the other two parties ever bother to go near. And for this Sinn Féin receives resentment in heaps from Fine Gael and Labour party apparatchiks. Their laziness is only equalled by their hypocrisy.

Personally I believe waffle describes it accurately.

I also viewed your response as an attempted insult on the person and not a witty remark which is why I reported the post. However when I reported your post I also chastised the mods for not taking control of that and the other Sinn Fein threads as all sorts of derailments and superfluous crap was being spouted by people with differing positions.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

The post you are questioning is in response to this post of yours Rebelheart



Personally I believe waffle describes it accurately.

I also viewed your response as an attempted insult on the person and not a witty remark which is why I reported the post. However when I reported your post I also chastised the mods for not taking control of that and the other Sinn Fein threads as all sorts of derailments and superfluous crap was being spouted by people with differing positions.

How is it an attempted insult? Explain how you view it as such. Was the ban then as a knee jerk response to your criticisms?

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

How is it an attempted insult? Explain how you view it as such.

To me its obvious that it was intended as an insult. If you don't see this then maybe your views are standing in the way of viewing this objectively.

Was the ban then as a knee jerk response to your criticisms?

I would sincerely doubt it given my recent history of disagreement with the mods on the politics forum.

Wolfe Tone

For somebody with 11,017 posts (and counting), I bow to your inestimable authority on the subject of "waffle" and "condescending" posts.

Thats the post.

I read that as RH saying that the poster has much more experience reading and responding to posts that he has inestimable authority on the subject of "waffle" and "condescending" posts.


The man has said as much himself. I dont think he would have much bones about telling him to go **** himself if he wanted to insult. He would do it properly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rebelheart

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You, of all people, should really endeavour to stick to the subject of this thread and try, for once, to desist from bringing your petty little squabbles into a thread where they've no place.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The "pattern" is far less clear than the paranoia level in some of your posts, this one obviously included.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it "speaks for itself", then I'd surely have been permanently banned sometime in 2008. You didn't really think too hard on the maths there, did you?

The fact remains that the moderator of that Politics thread banned me for doing nothing other than accepting the greater knowledge of a more established, and clearly more esteemed, member of the Politics forum. You have not addressed this issue, but rather have entered this thread to fulfil some form of online personal catharsis that is much more suited to Ranting & Raving.

Rebelheart

gandalf wrote: »

Personally I believe waffle describes it accurately.

You're entitled, of course, to your opinion. I haven't paid any attention to the evidently superior quality of your own posts - but rest assured that I will now, if only so that I can contribute more erudite, thoughtful comments.

gandalf wrote: »

I also viewed your response as an attempted insult on the person and not a witty remark which is why I reported the post.

I have never attempted to insult a poster on Boards.ie. Never. How does one even 'attempt' to insult somebody? LiamByrne has substantially more experience than I of meandering the deep waters of Irish political discourse so when he called me all those names*, I could only assume that he knew what he was talking about, which is why I said: 'For somebody with 11,017 posts (and counting), I bow to your inestimable authority on the subject of "waffle" and "condescending" posts.'

And for that simple acknowledgement, I was banned. It's ridiculous, made even more so by the context being the abject inability of moderators to moderate all the goading, off-topic anti-Sinn Féin posts which are now permeating each thread in that forum. Solution: ban somebody for not rising to it. You couldn't invent this stuff.

*mod note: clarification. Liambyrne, as linked above, did not call rebelheart names. Rebelheart is referring to Liambyrne's description of his post.

Scofflaw

Rebelheart wrote: »

You, of all people, should really endeavour to stick to the subject of this thread and try, for once, to desist from bringing your petty little squabbles into a thread where they've no place.



The "pattern" is far less clear than the paranoia level in some of your posts, this one obviously included.

If it "speaks for itself", then I'd surely have been permanently banned sometime in 2008. You didn't really think too hard on the maths there, did you?

Actually, that's a very good point. From your record, it looks as if the only time you're not picking up infractions in the Politics forum for insulting other posters is when you've been banned for doing it.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

You called all Blueshirts (i.e. FG supporters) deluded, i.e. a mass insult. Ergo you were banned. You should know better.


Calling someone's post waffle, while discouraged, isn't a personal insult just a childish way to attacking someone's post. Ergo, no ban for that user.

nesf

GuanYin wrote: »

If you want the ban overturned or action against the poster, the dispute resolution process is the way to go.

If they feel I have acted incorrectly, your ban may be overturned.

While it's in my hands, I feel the intent of your comment is clear and the ban stands.

From my and Scofflaw's comments on this thread, the CMods back the ban from the looks of things.

Rebelheart

nesf wrote: »

You called all Blueshirts (i.e. FG supporters) deluded, i.e. a mass insult. Ergo you were banned.

Actually, no: that's not why I was banned. Please have the decency to get your facts straight before making such ill-informed comments.

Rebelheart

nesf wrote: »

From my and Scofflaw's comments on this thread, the CMods back the ban from the looks of things.

Given that at least one of the CMods is patently misinformed on the most basic aspect of this case, this makes a mockery of this 'procedure', if that's what it can be called.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, that's a very good point. From your record, it looks as if the only time you're not picking up infractions in the Politics forum for insulting other posters is when you've been banned for doing it.

regards,
Scofflaw

Dear God, that's a lot of infractions from Politics. Someone is obviously not getting the message here.


Have discussed this with Scofflaw, your history merits a permanent ban but we feel it's only fair to give you a chance to show us you're able to not stoop to insulting other posters.

As such, the ban is lengthened to one month with the next ban for insulting another user resulting in a permanent Politics ban.

If you wish to dispute this, you may take it to the Dispute Resolution forum and ask the Admins to review your case.

nesf

Rebelheart wrote: »

Actually, no: that's not why I was banned. Please have the decency to get your facts straight before making such ill-informed comments.

I'd have banned you for that alone, I merely took the first insult from your post.

Wolfe Tone

nesf wrote: »

You called all Blueshirts (i.e. FG supporters) deluded, i.e. a mass insult. Ergo you were banned. You should know better.


Calling someone's post waffle, while discouraged, isn't a personal insult just a childish way to attacking someone's post. Ergo, no ban for that user.

So calling supporters, not a single one in particular, deluded is a bannable offence?


Just to be entirely clear in order to ensure there are no double standards for different political parties.

Rebelheart

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, that's a very good point. From your record, it looks as if the only time you're not picking up infractions in the Politics forum for insulting other posters is when you've been banned for doing it.

regards,
Scofflaw

What it "looks" like, and what it actually is are, in this case, clearly two different matters. If they were not, I'd have perhaps less than ten posts in the Politics forum rather than hundreds. What is this?

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, that's a very good point. From your record, it looks as if the only time you're not picking up infractions in the Politics forum for insulting other posters is when you've been banned for doing it.

regards,
Scofflaw

It would be very hard for him to pick up infractions in the politics forum if he cant post on it.

Rebelheart

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So calling supporters, not a single one in particular, deluded is a bannable offence?


Just to be entirely clear in order to ensure there are no double standards for different political parties.

Cue, half of the Politics forum now being banned for the generalisations which they make about Sinn Féin supporters. Oh, wait. :rolleyes:

The double standards in the moderating of Boards.ie's Politics forum are much worse than I'd suspected, and are now confirmed.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It would be very hard for him to pick up infractions in the politics forum if he cant post on it.

Indeed - and it seems to be the only reason he doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Rebelheart wrote: »

Cue, half of the Politics forum now being banned for the generalisations which they make about Sinn Féin supporters. Oh, wait. :rolleyes:

The double standards in the moderating of Boards.ie's Politics forum are much worse than I'd suspected, and are now confirmed.

More than half!!