Double Standards on boards.ie

John Sugrue

tbh wrote: »

You keep talking about him punishing you. It's why people don't believe you when you say that the warnin is t your main motive for this.

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

Orim

I don't think Whiteman has missed the point.

Reading into your complaint is that someone with a sexual innuendo in their name should not be moderating the LC forum especially as he has infracted you for the use of inappropriate language in the form of the term "Mr Smartass"

However the point Whiteman has been trying to make is that it is not the language but the fact that it is directed at someone in a mocking manner. To use your own example I'm sure that Randy would have done the same had you called someone Mr Clevercogs. It is the fact that it is an insult, not the choice of insult.

Without knowing exactly what was said in the PM conversation, I would assume that when talking about child protection and the need for the LC forum to be strictly moderated it is in regards to insults,flaming and trolling. The language does not come into because lets face anyone in the 16 - 19 age bracket generally knows more inventive swear words then their elders. However what they really don't need is any extra stress in what is generally the most stressful time of their life to that point. Any insult, even one as tame as this, is just an open door for trouble.

John Sugrue wrote: »

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

He is within the rules of the site. You were not.

That's like me saying that I couldn't be arrested for smoking hash because I saw the arresting gardai in a pub getting drunk.

John Sugrue

Orim wrote: »

I don't think Whiteman has missed the point.

Reading into your complaint is that someone with a sexual innuendo in their name should not be moderating the LC forum especially as he has infracted you for the use of inappropriate language in the form of the term "Mr Smartass"

However the point Whiteman has been trying to make is that it is not the language but the fact that it is directed at someone in a mocking manner. To use your own example I'm sure that Randy would have done the same had you called someone Mr Clevercogs. It is the fact that it is an insult, not the choice of insult.

Without knowing exactly what was said in the PM conversation, I would assume that when talking about child protection and the need for the LC forum to be strictly moderated it is in regards to insults,flaming and trolling. The language does not come into because lets face anyone in the 16 - 19 age bracket generally knows more inventive swear words then their elders. However what they really don't need is any extra stress in what is generally the most stressful time of their life to that point. Any insult, even one as tame as this, is just an open door for trouble.



He is within the rules of the site. You were not.

That's like me saying that I couldn't be arrested for smoking hash because I saw the arresting gardai in a pub getting drunk.

Yes, I think you are the first person to comment here who actually gets the full picture. I accept what you're saying and you're right for the most part.

At the same time, to take your point that 16-18 year olds would not be bothered by sexual innuendo as in the moderators username, I equally dont think any 16-18 would consider actually being called a smartass troubling.

Nevertheless we are both wrong. There is, no doubt, a LC student somewhere who would get upset by being called a smartass but, to be fair, I'm sure there is also a LC student who would find the term randylonghorn inappropriate. I still consider him to be inappropriate for his job. The site rules put too much emphasis on HOW someone is offended rather than WHAT is actually offensive.

Im dropping the issue now. Ive been at it too long. I dont agree with the moderator's action in warning me and a number of other moderators have agreed above that it was harsh. That acknowledgement is enough for me.

Spear

John Sugrue wrote: »

Im dropping the issue now. Ive been at it too long. I dont agree with the moderator's action in warning me. A number of other moderators have agreed above that it was harsh.

If you wish to dispute the infraction, then there's the DRP system here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

John Sugrue

Spear wrote: »

If you wish to dispute the infraction, then there's the DRP system here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

No thanks.

Insect Overlord

John Sugrue wrote: »

The issue is with the suitability of the moderator to do his job. It is not acceptable that someone who's language and behaviour on this forum is far from clean has the power to criticise me for using much less crude language, directed anywhere!

Have you taken the time to read all of randylonghorn's posts on the Leaving Cert forum? I'd imagine you probably haven't. The guy is one of the soundest moderators, posters and all-round characters on the whole site. Whenever he does make a joke or an "adult" post, he posts it in the appropriate forum. His behaviour on the Leaving Cert forum, to my knowledge, has been of a very high standard for a very long time, and the advice he offers to younger posters can be hugely beneficial.

John Sugrue wrote: »

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

As I said above, this is nonsense. I can't think of anyone better to mod the LC forum. Funny names and avatars do not define an individual. They may have given you a bad first impression, fair enough. But slating his whole character based on one single interaction you've had with him is incredibly naïve.

Straylight

Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Randy's username just because he's the mod of the LC forum? Would you have a problem with it under any of the following scenarios:

- Randy is a mod of a different forum but posts in the LC forum?
- Randy is a regular poster rather than a mod and posts in the LC forum?
- Randy never posts in the LC forum but is a mod of another forum that you also regularly post in?

John Sugrue

Straylight wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Randy's username just because he's the mod of the LC forum? Would you have a problem with it under any of the following scenarios:

- Randy is a mod of a different forum but posts in the LC forum?
- Randy is a regular poster rather than a mod and posts in the LC forum?
- Randy never posts in the LC forum but is a mod of another forum that you also regularly post in?

No my problem is with someone with such a username preaching to me about what is appropriate language. There's all sorts of stuff about how I directed my comment at an individual etc etc. But nevertheless it is still galling to be told that jokingly calling someone a smartass is inappropriate by someone who's profile has the term porn star and lots of masturbation and sexual innuendo on it and who's username speaks for itself.

John Sugrue

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Funny names and avatars do not define an individual. They may have given you a bad first impression, fair enough. But slating his whole character based on one single interaction you've had with him is incredibly naïve.

Fair enough. But it does come across as somewhat hypocritical.

Oh and his name is somewhat more than "funny". That's the issue.

Tallon

tbh wrote: »

Forgot to say, also think the infraction is harsh.

It was a yelow card, not really something to write home about

Straylight

John Sugrue wrote: »

No my problem is with someone with such a username preaching to me about what is appropriate language. There's all sorts of stuff about how I directed my comment at an individual etc etc. But nevertheless it is still galling to be told that jokingly calling someone a smartass is inappropriate by someone who's profile has the term porn star and lots of masturbation and sexual innuendo on it and who's username speaks for itself.

So essentially you have no problem with the username or avatar then? It's just purely because they happen to belong to a mod who has certain powers on the site? Is that in itself not a double standard? Surely they should be objectionable in all circumstances or none?

John Sugrue

Straylight wrote: »

So essentially you have no problem with the username or avatar then? It's just purely because they happen to belong to a mod who has certain powers on the site? Is that in itself not a double standard? Surely they should be objectionable in all circumstances or none?

I was warned for inappropriate use of language by someone I consider to be using inappropriate language. That's it really. It's quite simple but it's been looked at and poked from all angles over the last few hours.

I really am leaving it now. I've been wasting time with it for too long.

Insect Overlord

John Sugrue wrote: »

No my problem is with someone with such a username preaching to me about what is appropriate language.

Nobody was preaching. The mod was applying the rules as they're laid out in the charter, and in the site-wide guidelines. It could just as easily have been Fad or Piste. Randy just got there first.

John Sugrue

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nobody was preaching. The mod was applying the rules as they're laid out in the charter, and in the site-wide guidelines. It could just as easily have been Fad or Piste. Randy just got there first.

It's a pity it was not Fad or Piste. There would have been no issue then.

randylonghorn

John Sugrue wrote: »

As I explained to the moderator in my PM following the warning, this was meant jokingly and has been misconstrued by the moderator, who admits in his response that nobody reported the comment.

No, please read what I said again. I said that it seemed that no-one else had a problem with the post which you responded to, and which you deemed deserved such a response because it was "boastful and arrogant", as no-one had reported THAT post.

This btw was your response:

John Sugrue wrote: »

Got your negative wrong Mr. Smartass. It's "je ne l'ai PAS entendu".

You got a yellow card, i.e. a warning, and were told to "leave it out". You weren't birched or imprisoned or subjected to any inhumane form of "punishment", you got a formal warning.

John Sugrue wrote: »

However, my issue is now one of transparency and equality on the forums. The moderator in question is called 'randylonghorn'. His profile clarifies this as 'exactly what it says on the tin'. What's more, he has an avatar on his profile with the term 'porn star' on it. Nobody can dispute that this is a sexually explicit username and profile and given that he is so active in the Leaving Cert forum and that his profile is thus easily viewable by those under 18 who he claims require an additional degree of moderator protection, I feel that it is hypocritical and unfair, that such a person can discipline me for using the term 'smartass'.

You know, fair enough.

I don't for a second agree with you, but you're perfectly entitled to raise this point if you feel strongly about it.

If the Site Admins agree with you, they will no doubt ask me to step aside as a mod of LC, and I will do so cheerfully and without the slightest ill-feeling.

I will not however be changing my username or profile. I was jokingly dubbed with the nick which is now my username by an ex-gf, and it stuck to the extent that many people who know me from college still call me Randy (including a couple of my old professors!). I'm quite fond of the nick and indeed of the person who so named me, and I won't be changing it to conform to someone else's moral crusade.

looksee wrote: »

I would not consider it overly offensive if it was obviously a joke rather than an insult, was the mod referring to the term or to the fact that it contained the word ass? Would he have been warned if he had referred to Mr Cleverclogs or any other similar expression?

See the original post quoted above.

The fact that it contained the word ass is absolutely irrelevant.

John Sugrue wrote: »

It is with the fact that someone with such a username is in a position where he can criticise me on issues of decency and child protection.

Where did I mention "decency and child protection"?

My comment was exactly as you have posted it above in your OP ...

"You should also be aware, however, that forums vary to some extent as to the amount of leeway allowable. LC has always been and always will be quite tightly moderated in comparison to some other forums, in order to ensure that it provides a useful and calm environment for the discussion of issues pertaining to the Leaving Cert, something which is in itself sufficiently stressful for most people undertaking it without having to endure a stressed and antagonistic atmosphere in this forum."

... and in response to your assertion that you had seen stronger insults go unremarked in other forums.

It points out that LC is tightly moderated, and that flaming is nipped in the bud very sharply, in order to ensure a "useful and calm environment" and to prevent "a stressed and antagonistic atmosphere" in a forum where people are already highly stressed quite often.

I never mentioned "child protection". I wouldn't insult the users of the LC forum by referring to them as children, they're young adults.

John Sugrue wrote: »

The issue of child protection is one of the arguments the moderator gave for stricter moderation of the LC forum.

No, it wasn't.

John Sugrue wrote: »

I quoted that above from the PM he sent me so there's nothing to link to.

No, you didn't.

You quoted that from a public post, whiteman19 has already linked to the relevant thread in his post above.

tbh wrote: »

Forgot to say, also think the infraction is harsh.

Teebs, as I explained above, it is policy in LC to nip any flaming very quickly in the bud. John's post might easily have gone unremarked in other forums, which is exactly what I tried to explain to him in the paragraph which he has quoted, but which he has chosen to interpret as some kind of diatribe about child protection and vulgarity.

John Sugrue wrote: »

If it is the innocence of the 16-18 year olds and how they would view the sexual terms that matters ...

Again, the issue which resulted in you receiving a warning was flaming and insulting other posters, not any affront to the "innocence" of 16-18 year olds.

Orim wrote: »

Without knowing exactly what was said in the PM conversation ....

There was no PM conversation, Orim. My response to John Sugrue is publicly viewable on thread.

Orim wrote: »

I would assume that when talking about child protection

Never mentioned the term, nor is it relevant.

Orim wrote: »

... and the need for the LC forum to be strictly moderated it is in regards to insults,flaming and trolling. The language does not come into because lets face anyone in the 16 - 19 age bracket generally knows more inventive swear words then their elders. However what they really don't need is any extra stress in what is generally the most stressful time of their life to that point. Any insult, even one as tame as this, is just an open door for trouble.

Despite having been mislead by mention of PMs and child protection, you are absolutely spot on target!

challengemaster

John Sugrue wrote: »

I was warned for inappropriate use of language by someone I consider to be using inappropriate language. That's it really. It's quite simple but it's been looked at and poked from all angles over the last few hours.

I really am leaving it now. I've been wasting time with it for too long.

If you consider that inappropriate language..... jeez. Things are going downhill.

boards has always taken a very pro-family stance when it comes to implementing rules to make sure unappropriate content is out of the view of the general public (ie. some subscriber stuff, private fora, etc)

I'm fairly sure there's been multiple stages (registration, being made a mod, mod of LC, etc) where if the admins or guys at boards HQ saw the username as inappropriate, they would have done something about it. As they didn't, and they ultimately have the last say over all matters - you're essentially wasting your time. If it was an issue, it would already have been dealt with.

As has already been said - randy is one of the better characters on the site, and there is a damn good reason he was made a moderator of LC.

72051877 wrote:

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

You're not the one who gets to decide that. Boards is privately owned, there's no freedom of speech. Moderators keep things running smoothly, and do a good job of it too. The people in charge obviously see no issue with it, otherwise he wouldn't be a moderator.

John Sugrue

randylonghorn wrote: »

You know, fair enough.

I don't for a second agree with you, but you're perfectly entitled to raise this point if you feel strongly about it.

If the Site Admins agree with you, they will no doubt ask me to step aside as a mod of LC, and I will do so cheerfully and without the slightest ill-feeling.

I have no intention of reporting to the site admins. I have made my point and it has to some extent been acknowledged as fair, even if not agreed with, by you and a number of earlier posters and that is enough for me.

John Sugrue

challengemaster wrote: »

As has already been said - randy is one of the better characters on the site, and there is a damn good reason he was made a moderator of LC.

Ok, I'll take your word on that.

But I would consider myself a fairly good character too who does his best to help the students in the LC forum. One silly post and I get an official warning seemed a bit harsh especially when his profile made him look like total hypocrite to be judging my behaviour.

But look, it's in the past. I'm moving on. Would be insane to spend more than a day on something like this lol

randylonghorn

John Sugrue wrote: »

I have no intention of reporting to the site admins.

Oh, the Admins tend to read the Feedback forum; that's at least partly why it exists.

If they feel the need to take any action or indeed comment on the issue, they will do so.

challengemaster

John Sugrue wrote: »

But I would consider myself a fairly good character too who does his best to help the students in the LC forum. One silly post and I get an official warning seemed a bit harsh...l

That's how things roll in LC - You take a bunch of hormonal and stressed out teenagers and pile them into an anonymous forum, anything seeminly minor anywhere else, could turn into a massive arguement and derail a thread. As has already been said multiple times on this thread, moderation of LC is heavy handed compared to other fora, to keep the level of arguements / flame wars to a minimum so the forum actually serves its purpose.

tbh

randylonghorn wrote: »

Teebs, as I explained above, it is policy in LC to nip any flaming very quickly in the bud. John's post might easily have gone unremarked in other forums, which is exactly what I tried to explain to him in the paragraph which he has quoted, but which he has chosen to interpret as some kind of diatribe about child protection and vulgarity.

just wanted to point out that having seen the post, I probably would have said something about it if it were in the GC, say. I don't usually hand out yellows, but would regard a "lads, cool it" remark to be of the same severity, and more than likely would have made a remark like that myself.

bonkey

There seems to be a number of issues getting knotted together here.

I'm going to try and untangle them....

Firstly, there was an infraction given to a user for reasons that the OP has decided to accept.

The harshness or acceptability of the infraction should have nothing to do with who issues it. Either the infraction is merited/acceptable or its not - that doesn't change based on who gave it, or what the username is of the person who gave it.

Secondly, there is a user with a username the OP finds (somewhat) objectionable. That's what the second issue boils down to...whether or not a given username is acceptable.

It shouldn't be a case of
"acceptable, but not for a mod", .
nor for
"acceptable, but not for a mod of this forum",
nor for
"acceptable, but not for a mod of this forum who infracted me",
and certainly not for
"acceptable, but not for a mod of this particular forum who infracted me for this particular action".

It really is that simple...either the username is acceptable or its not.

There's also the possible issue as to whether or not RLH's "tag" is acceptable or not. This is really linked to the issue of the username, as the tag in an of itself is innocuous.

There's the related question as to whether or not the user's avatar is acceptable. This is somewhat, but not entierly, seperate to the question of the username. They could be dealt with together or seperately.

Conflating the two main issues is doing no-one any favours. One is an issue regarding an infraction for directly insulting another user. One is an issue about the propriety of a username/tagline/avatar. Either they can be argued on their own merits, or they can't. If either can be argued on its own merit, then we gain nothing by conflating the two issues.

So lets keep them seperate, eh?

Wibbs

My take FWIW is that randylonghorn is one of the best mods on this site, helping to run one of the more popular and informative forums on here and doing it well. Free gratis while we're at it. Like any large group you'll get the odd tool or bad day, but I honestly can't recall a single complaint about the guy.

And then one Maud Flanders type is making an issue? And this is being taken seriously? Eh wut? Maybe I'm being simplistic here, but sweet zombie Jesus has it really come to this?

P. Breathnach

Wibbs wrote: »

... And then one Maud Flanders type is making an issue? ...

Whatever happened to "attack the post, not the poster"?

IITYWYBMAD

Wibbs wrote: »

My take FWIW is that randylonghorn is one of the best mods on this site, helping to run one of the more popular and informative forums on here and doing it well. Free gratis while we're at it. Like any large group you'll get the odd tool or bad day, but I honestly can't recall a single complaint about the guy.

And then one Maud Flanders type is making an issue? And this is being taken seriously? Eh wut? Maybe I'm being simplistic here, but sweet zombie Jesus has it really come to this?

How many complainants do you feel it warrants, before an issue is taken seriously? 2? 14? Whats with the "Maud Flanders" ? I think Bonkey has very concisely extracted the noise from the signal on this one, and the fact the randy is an excellent mod is a moot point tbh, and it's not his ability to mod nor his actions that are being questioned by the OP.

We all know mods do the job out of the goodness of their hearts, so we don't need to be told everyday how boards.ie gets them on the cheap. If you or any other mod has an issue with not getting paid, tender your resignation....simples!

Morag

Is Randy's name to ribald for the site?
I don't think it is and I think the someone think of the children is a joke tbh.
Still if a name change is needed, I suggest Biggus Dickus.

Wibbs

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

How many complainants do you feel it warrants, before an issue is taken seriously? 2? 14? Whats with the "Maud Flanders" ? I think Bonkey has very concisely extracted the noise from the signal on this one, and the fact the randy is an excellent mod is a moot point tbh, and it's not his ability to mod nor his actions that are being questioned by the OP.

Actually no they are, but in a roundabout way. Well not so roundabout in the case of calling randylonghorn hypocritical (and by association a hypocrite), questioning his "suitability to moderate" and questioned his actions over the infraction(which I agree FTR was harsh).

Bonkey has sought to remove the infraction part from all this and I agree, but the righteous indignation at randy's name strikes me as odd. Why? well given the complainant has been around since 07 and hasn't noted nor reported this affront to the innocent youth of Ireland before he was infracted something doesn't quite add up. You would think the baudiness and unsuitability would have been noted before now? IMHO it's just a nuisance action that's dragged on 4 pages too long. I agree with tbh when he wrote

tbh wrote:

I very much doubt you're over the warning, it seems to be the only thing that's motivating this tbh.

Insect Overlord

John Sugrue wrote: »

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nobody was preaching. The mod was applying the rules as they're laid out in the charter, and in the site-wide guidelines. It could just as easily have been Fad or Piste. Randy just got there first.

It's a pity it was not Fad or Piste. There would have been no issue then.

I stopped replying after this post. I can't believe anyone is taking this complaint seriously anymore, not after this incredible show of hypocrisy.

IITYWYBMAD

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually no they are, but in a roundabout way. Well not so roundabout in the case of calling randylonghorn hypocritical (and by association a hypocrite), questioning his "suitability to moderate" and questioned his actions over the infraction(which I agree FTR was harsh).

Bonkey has sought to remove the infraction part from all this and I agree, but the righteous indignation at randy's name strikes me as odd. Why? well given the complainant has been around since 07 and hasn't noted nor reported this affront to the innocent youth of Ireland before he was infracted something doesn't quite add up. You would think the baudiness and unsuitability would have been noted before now? IMHO it's just a nuisance action that's dragged on 4 pages too long. I agree with tbh when he wrote

To a certain extent I agree, but I also find it ironic, and a little Janus like, that much of this thread has been taken up trying to find reasoning behind the "complaint" while nobody has actually taken time to directly address it. And I mean directly.

I appreciate that it may be viewed in someway as a storm in a teacup, but I find the lack of direct "action" (probably not the correct term) has become very typical of this type of complaint.

You don't have to look a million miles from this thread to see numerous examples of where a simple, direct, concise answer from an Admin would have nipped this type of thing in the bud.

Something along the lines of "randy's moniker is fine with us, and we will not be requesting him to change it" from a member of the Admin team would have knocked this on the head, ages ago. The same could be said about the goings on in the recent soccer thread here, where a well known troll has been allowed to get away with disruption left, right and centre, and yet the lack of action by an Admin is galling, and to the actual determent of the forum.

The lack of decision making, and the absolute disaster that are "Feedforward etc.." is only promoting this kind of flacid, "skirting around the issue", back and forth type behavior. And while it is the mods and admins who are left with the mess, it is those very people who have the tools and clout to nip this very thing in the bud.

Here's an idea....somebody make a decision. Stop splitting hairs, and move on?

tbh

great post. Feedforward, and the idea that every decision has to be justified and accounted for and agreed by everyone, is killing the site. The admins make the decisions, it's the way it's always been and the only chance the site has of moving forward. imo, of course.