Double Standards on boards.ie

Wibbs

Funny enough(beyond the "we have Joe Duffy listeners here now?" aspect of the thread) I do agree with a lot of your post IITYWYBMAD. The place, well more precisely certain aspects of the place of late feels, I dunno rudderless for want of a better word.

Wibbs

tbh wrote: »

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.

The problem was not so much FF teebs, which is essentially dead at the moment anyway, but the implementation of it. With a few exceptions nothing was. Simple as that. Have a look for yourself.

Leave it to the Admins? With a few very notable and bloody hard working exceptions a chunk of them are nowhere to be seen and haven't been for a good while and are implementing nothing policy wise either. Even basic caretaking tasks seem to drag on for ages when not so long ago they didn't. So personally speaking I have little faith in that layer with as I say the aforementioned really good ones excluded. Since the new admin layer was created out of the old smods, they've added to and even created more hassle for the site than reduced it. IMO of course.

LoLth

IITYWYBMAD 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.

well, either I've been demoted or my response was not abrupt enough (which is strange because the last time I gave an abrupt, no nonsense, answer i was called up for it and criticised for being robotic and too abrupt.

I dont knwo about you but most 16 to 18 year olds I've encountered wouldnt blink an eyelid at that level of innuendo or quite a lot worse. Where would you suggest we draw the line at the level of exposure?
so should longhorn cattle in the states be re-named because some people may mistake the meaning ? perhaps its a good thing that windows changed windows longhorn's name. Perhaps we should force a namechange by deed poll on everyone called Randy (Randall, Randalph, etc) in real life. Maybe we should ask him to change his profile career type to "aspiring actor" or "pizza delivery boy" and report him to Ronseal for theft of their catchphrase.

Trust me, there are worse innuendo names on boards and they have been here a long time. I think you need to relax a bit and not read into everything so much or you are going to find the internet a very scary place indeed.

If thats too longwinded perhaps the shortened version would do:

"stop being ridiculous, while Randy Longhorn's name is innuendo there's a lot worse out there so no, I dont think he needs to change his name nor is it against any boards.ie naming policy".

IITYWYBMAD

LoLth wrote: »

well, either I've been demoted or my response was not abrupt enough (which is strange because the last time I gave an abrupt, no nonsense, answer i was called up for it and criticised for being robotic and too abrupt.

You gave your retort in post No.7 AFAICS. At no point did you make a decision on the supposed complaint, or maybe I'm missing something?

LoLth

there was no "decision" to be made. Op gave feedback on a username that he felt was too rude for the forum beign moderated, I responded. also, the fact that it is post number 7 means nothing, I still responded when I got a chance to compose a full response. or do you think that admins should post a quick +1 to show they are online? I apologise if you feel that a 1 hour 14 minute response time is not good enough. Want to pay me to sit on standby in future?

IITYWYBMAD

LoLth wrote: »

there was no "decision" to be made. Op gave feedback on a username that he felt was too rude for the forum beign moderated, I responded. also, the fact that it is post number 7 means nothing, I still responded when I got a chance to compose a full response. or do you think that admins should post a quick +1 to show they are online? I apologise if you feel that a 1 hour 14 minute response time is not good enough. Want to pay me to sit on standby in future?

Not really, however I think you should lose the attitude when a general criticism is made. I don't really understand the difference between what you said in post No.7 and what you mean by a full response tbh, but that's beside th point.

My point is, and was, that in relation to the statement/query/whatever by the OP:

"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'.

That a simple direct addressing of his/her issue/question would have been more effective than allowing the thread to meander as it had. I've suggested a response above, why do you find it so annoying?

stoneill

I agree with the OP
Mods should have non-contentious names.

Insect Overlord

Who decides what's contentious?

LoLth

you claimed that no admin responded: I did
you claimed that the OP's issue was not addressed: it was, in my post

your response (#66) to my post (#65) was that my original response wasnt until post number 7, implying that it took too long whereas the timeframe of the response was 1 hour and 14 minutes after the original post.

the criticism on the time taken to respond was not general, it was directly concerning my response to the thread. hence my attitude.

as for addressing the users concerns, I responded to the post , point by point which I did to show that I had fully read their post. Admittedly I did not respond in a formal manner but having been criticised for that before, I've been working on keeping it light so as not to overly offend.

You misunderstand my reference to a properly composed response. my response, 1 hour and 14 minutes after the original post, was the composed response. I saw the original post when it was posted but I was busy (RL stuff) so decided to wait until I had free time to post a response (which is why the response time was over 1 hour) rather than just post a short response immediately.

I do not find it annoying that you have suggested a resposne, I find it annoying that you seem to be selectively reading the thread to suit your own view of events and then criticising me for

a: being slow to respond
b: not addressing the original posters issues
c: allowing the thread to "meander" (how had the thread meandered before I responded?)


a request: please read post number 7 and explain to me where I did not address the users questions? I honestly am failing to see where an issue was not addressed and I would appreciate it if you could point it out to me so I can be sure to avoid making the same oversight in the future.

IITYWYBMAD

LoLth wrote: »

you claimed that no admin responded: I did

I said nothing of the sort.

you claimed that the OP's issue was not addressed: it was, in my post

again, I said nothing of the sort.

your response (#66) to my post (#65) was that my original response wasnt until post number 7, implying that it took too long whereas the timeframe of the response was 1 hour and 14 minutes after the original post.

I think you are mis-reading what I said. In post #66 I said that you responded to the OP in post #7 of this post. It was not a criticism of the time you (or any other Admin) took to respond, I just found the response was more concerned with the reason why the OP complained as opposed to addressing the actual complaint/query. At no stage did I say "you did not respond until 1Hour 40X minutes etc....." and the thrust of my post #61 was not to point out any form of "tardiness" it was to point out that I feel, if a complaint/query is baseless or being dressed up as something it is not, that a simple "It's fine with us" or "yes you are correct, he is a disruptive element on that board" followed up with some Admin/Mod action is the way forward, and the way to deal with these things.

again, I fail to see where you addressed his specific issue in your original post. I don't see it. I see where you accuse him of having ulterior motives for his supposed grievance, and where you also give your view on internet names, but not where the issue is addressed.

the criticism on the time taken to respond was not general, it was directly concerning my response to the thread. hence my attitude.

I did not criticise you, nor your timely response. You have certainly gotten the wrong end of a non-existent stick here.

I do not find it annoying that you have suggested a resposne, I find it annoying that you seem to be selectively reading the thread to suit your own view of events and then criticising me for

a: being slow to respond
b: not addressing the original posters issues
c: allowing the thread to "meander" (how had the thread meandered before I responded?)

Ok. Where did I say you were slow to respond? Where?

Insect Overlord

You know a thread's on the verge of being Godwinned when it's been reduced to one guy fighting over semantics...

Tallon

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You know a thread's on the verge of being Godwinned when it's been reduced to one guy fighting over semantics...

Like the Anti-virus?

IITYWYBMAD

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You know a thread's on the verge of being Godwinned when it's been reduced to one guy fighting over semantics...

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask where the evidence exists that supports an accusation. Do you not? If you feel that I'm being semantic, well then that's your prerogative.

I stand by my statement at the top of this page, and nothing said since then has addressed the main thrust of my point, bar LoLth getting annoyed at my perceived slight.

LoLth

I wont apologise for being annoyed to a perceived slight however, I do allow for the possibility that I may have made a mistake and perceived it incorrectly.

perhaps, if I explain my perception of your posts you will better understand where I am coming from and could perhaps set me straight on how what you meant differs from what I understood:

from post #60

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 feel that I did address it. And directly, if not abruptly, by quoting and responding to each point in the original post. Additionally, the reason for a complaint is, to me, almost as important as the complaint itself as it can often differentiate between a misunderstanding borne of misperception due to bias or pre-disposition and a legitimate concern.

I find the lack of direct "action" (probably not the correct term) has become very typical of this type of complaint

no, action is possibly not the correcct term. From this I took that you do not see responding to a post as a form of action, which I disagree with. Sometimes a response is all that is required.

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

My response was simple, I answered each point in turn. I am an admin. From this I took that you either didnt read my post or you did not realise that I was an admin. I already addressed the issue of being concise which can be seen as abrupt and it is something that I have been called up on before. So now I prefer to be thorough.

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.

I already addressed this by quoting the relevant part of my response to the OP.

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.

I have responded to every reported post in the soccer trolling thread. I have posted there and answered questions where possible and given opinion where necessary and I have one to give. Again, either you havent read my posts or you didnt realise I am an admin. I dont mod the soccer forum so I cannot make a call on who is, and is not a troll there. Until they troll here I prefer to give everyone the right to post an opinion. Once the issue became clear I took steps to correct it and put the thread back on track. I hope you can understand that I find the accusation that there is a galling lack of admin action to be a criticism of my actions in that thread.

from post #65

You gave your retort in post No.7 AFAICS

I fail to see the relevance of my response being post number 7. There either was a reponse or there wasnt. the only reason I can think that you would reference the number of the post is because you perceive some issue with the number. I , perhaps mistakenly, assumed that it was a criticism of being post number 7 and not post number 2.

At no point did you make a decision on the supposed complaint, or maybe I'm missing something?

I already quoted the section of my response that gave my opinion on the issue of the username. Feedback is a place for feedback, it is not where a complaint is upheld or appealed. It is a forum for giving feedback and opinions. I think my response portrayed my opinion of the OPs issue with Randy Longhorm's username and also my reasoning for it.

from post #67:

Not really, however I think you should lose the attitude when a general criticism is made

as already mentioned, two points you raised concerned, or overlooked, posts and actions I had taken. This, tome, was enough to move it from a general criticism to one that specifically involved me.

That a simple direct addressing of his/her issue/question would have been more effective than allowing the thread to meander as it had

You cant really get more direct than quoting the relevant part of the post you are addressing and putting your response right there under the quoted section. Simple? define simple? Too short and its rude, too vague and its confusing. i gave my opinion and the reasons for my opinion as already quoted in response to your post above.

I also would question how the thread had meandered by post 7 when I had responded and how a delay of just over an hour can be interpreted as allowing it to do so. That statement apportions blame on me. I would like you to explain how I am responsible for any of the posts before I responded that you consider to be off topic or irrelevant. That the thread was allowed to emander before an admin responded suggests that an admin (me) was slow to respond - especially as meandering is a slow movement off to either side of a direct course.

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to ask where evidence exists that supports an accusation. I have provided my evidence, perhaps you could return the courtesy and provide evidence to support your accusations of admin inactivity, in this thread and in the soccer thread which you specifically referenced as an example of admin (in)activity being detrimental to the forum.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

IITYWYBMAD

LoLth wrote: »

I wont apologise for being annoyed to a perceived slight however, I do allow for the possibility that I may have made a mistake and perceived it incorrectly.

Ok, fair enough. Just to be clear from my perspective, I did not accuse you, or any other Admin, of tardiness in addressing the OP.

perhaps, if I explain my perception of your posts you will better understand where I am coming from and could perhaps set me straight on how what you meant differs from what I understood:

Fine.

from post #60


I feel that I did address it. And directly, if not abruptly, by quoting and responding to each point in the original post. Additionally, the reason for a complaint is, to me, almost as important as the complaint itself as it can often differentiate between a misunderstanding borne of misperception due to bias or pre-disposition and a legitimate concern.

I disagree. I think you're confusion responding with addressing. Its quite obvious from your initial post on this thread that you responded to each and every point the OP made, however, and this is my opinion, I believe you missed the opportunity to clearly state the reasoning behind your already made up mind.

You went on an exercise on exploring the reasoning behind the OP's issue and also on your reasoning involving pseudo scientific pools and the naming of cattle.

My point is, that a simple, concise (abrupt if you want to call it) three line message to the effect of mine suggested would have nipped this in the bud. I still, up until earlier today, had no idea what the Admins position was on this. Does that strike you as odd?

While you quite clearly found the time to dissect the OP's reasoning, and explore the titillating facts surrounding the use of "horn" in (semi)normal everyday language, at no point did I see a clear message which said "This is our position on this....".

no, action is possibly not the correcct term. From this I took that you do not see responding to a post as a form of action, which I disagree with. Sometimes a response is all that is required.

This, in a funny way, is exactly what I'm talking about. I would contend that it's the content which matters, not the exercise of responding.

My response was simple, I answered each point in turn. I am an admin. From this I took that you either didnt read my post or you did not realise that I was an admin. I already addressed the issue of being concise which can be seen as abrupt and it is something that I have been called up on before. So now I prefer to be thorough.

That may be so, and I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but I do think that the manner in which was formulated was simply wrong, and to be honest, full of assumption and error. For example, you ask the OP to "re-examine your definition of explicit", when it's as clear as anything that randy's monicker is explicit. It 100% is!! Actually....Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail. from any online dictionary. Now you can split hairs till you blue in the face on words like sexual, graphic, nudity, etc....

But all of that is very much beside the point.

I already addressed this by quoting the relevant part of my response to the OP.

I think your final line in post #64 would have sufficed tbh.

I have responded to every reported post in the soccer trolling thread. I have posted there and answered questions where possible and given opinion where necessary and I have one to give. Again, either you havent read my posts or you didnt realise I am an admin. I dont mod the soccer forum so I cannot make a call on who is, and is not a troll there. Until they troll here I prefer to give everyone the right to post an opinion. Once the issue became clear I took steps to correct it and put the thread back on track. I hope you can understand that I find the accusation that there is a galling lack of admin action to be a criticism of my actions in that thread.

I don't doubt you have responded, and I do wish you would stop personalising this, as it's not about you tbh.

To me, in the case of the "soccer thread" the issue was clear cut, and let me explain why. We have a poster (The Muppet) who has been forum banned in the past (on a 3 strikes your out policy), has tried to hoodwink everybody from users to DeV/Vex in his past and just strolls into the Liverpool thread and starts mentioning The Sun and Hillsborough in the same sentence under the guise of some faux concerned football fan, knowing full well the reaction he would get, while simply skirting the rules.

The answer to me in that case is simple. Out you go. And yet, we have page after page (ok I haven't read the thread over the weekend but I can guess the content) over what was going on and why, when it's as obvious to the majority of people that the guy was just out for getting a rise.

I personally (a football fan) have stopped posting in Soccer due to this user and more like him. And I know of quiet a few others who are also fed up with it. My experience.

from post #65


I fail to see the relevance of my response being post number 7. There either was a reponse or there wasnt. the only reason I can think that you would reference the number of the post is because you perceive some issue with the number. I , perhaps mistakenly, assumed that it was a criticism of being post number 7 and not post number 2.

there is no relevance. My point is that while you may have replied to the OP, I feel that a decision on the OP's issues would probably have been more apt. For example, you said what you said in #7. if you had said "User X, we, as an Admin team, have no issue with XXXX's avatar or username, thank for your concern. " you could not have been perceived as being abrupt, rude,etc... The message is clear. There is no issue.

The fact that I mention post #7 is being given more credence by you than it deserves, I'm questioning neither the timing nor the numerical significance of your first post in this thread.

I already quoted the section of my response that gave my opinion on the issue of the username. Feedback is a place for feedback, it is not where a complaint is upheld or appealed. It is a forum for giving feedback and opinions. I think my response portrayed my opinion of the OPs issue with Randy Longhorm's username and also my reasoning for it.

While your definition of Feedback may be correct, the use of the forum normally involves some sort of grievance. Feedback is a two way street. A user states his/her opinion, and the Admins (should) make their view clear, imo. Others seem to agree with me.

from post #67:


as already mentioned, two points you raised concerned, or overlooked, posts and actions I had taken. This, tome, was enough to move it from a general criticism to one that specifically involved me.

Indeed. You accused me of something I blatantly did not do. Your back was up, because you perceived that I was critiquing your actions and timings, when my points did not go anywhere near questioning the timing of anything, nor did I accuse you of inaction.

I've specifically asked you to point out where I said you showed any form of tardiness, and you have responded with your "perception". I reacted to you reacting...I apologize.

You cant really get more direct than quoting the relevant part of the post you are addressing and putting your response right there under the quoted section. Simple? define simple? Too short and its rude, too vague and its confusing. i gave my opinion and the reasons for my opinion as already quoted in response to your post above.

I also would question how the thread had meandered by post 7 when I had responded and how a delay of just over an hour can be interpreted as allowing it to do so. That statement apportions blame on me. I would like you to explain how I am responsible for any of the posts before I responded that you consider to be off topic or irrelevant. That the thread was allowed to emander before an admin responded suggests that an admin (me) was slow to respond - especially as meandering is a slow movement off to either side of a direct course.

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to ask where evidence exists that supports an accusation. I have provided my evidence, perhaps you could return the courtesy and provide evidence to support your accusations of admin inactivity, in this thread and in the soccer thread which you specifically referenced as an example of admin (in)activity being detrimental to the forum.

I don't disagree with most of what you have said above, and I've a long day and not much more time for this thread, but I hope you'll agree that I've addressed everything you've asked me to address above, whether you accept it or not, is up to you.

Let me say that I absolutely was not criticizing your, or anybodies effort here, nor anybodies response times. I use and enjoy boards immensely, I just think some things can be done a lot better in some areas.

My 2c.

LoLth

well, I do apologise for misunderstanding your meaning. While I do think that some of your wording was a bit ambiguous I should have given benefit of the doubt and not jumped on the offensive-defense so quickly.

I do agree with some of your point and you are right, there are things that can be done a lot better. Thats pretty much why the Feedback forum is here tbh I would very much like to make feedback more than just a complaints thread. I'd like it to be a discussion of how a thing is done and how it can be made better without trench warfare or black vs white throwdowns.

granted I havent really been a paragon of understanding and open mindedness in thsi thread ah well ,live and learn..

pickarooney

My humble opinion, for what it's worth, is that it's ridiculous to punish someone for saying Mr. Smartass and the rest is just so much fluff and bollocks that gets in the way of a simple and fair point.

later12

Did anyone actually read that thread? The poster was clearly either joking or both joking and correcting a mistake (I suggest the latter) - if the moderator had read the post to which the OP responded, that would have been quite obvious I am sure. Just in case it hasn't been seen it

poster 1

Now that the orals are all over...

I've a question for everyone who used the verb "répéter" in any way, shape or form throughout the exam.

Did you pronounce it "ray-pit-ay" or "ray-pett-ay"? If you pronounced it "ray-pett-ay" that would actually be the verb répêter which means "To fart again".

So "Madame/Monsieur, Pouvez-vous répêter la question s'il vous plait, je ne l'ai entendu pas la première fois" would actually mean "Madame/Sir, could you please fart the question again? I didn't hear it the first time."

I'm so glad I didn't need to ask my examiner to repeat any questions now

poster 2:

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

I'm sure the OP will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's quite obvious he was correcting an often-repeated misplacement among those learning French, but doing so in a very lighthearded way. It could have been dealt with there and then very easily with a simple explanation. An infraction for that seems as unwarranted as Randylonghorn going to the trouble of explaining the genesis of his name on here. Cheers for that by the way.

randylonghorn

later10 wrote: »

Did anyone actually read that thread? The poster was clearly either joking or both joking and correcting a mistake (I suggest the latter) - if the moderator had read the post to which the OP responded, that would have been quite obvious I am sure.

I actually read that thread, including the post to which the OP responded, his post, and indeed the responses to his post.

Have you actually read *this* thread ... and in particular my detailed response above?

later12

randylonghorn wrote: »

Have you actually read *this* thread ... and in particular my detailed response above?

Yes, I did, and as detailed as it undeniably was, it didn't really touch on the context of John Sugrue's infracted post.

Looking at it logically, I reckon most people would say: OK, this is (a) rather lighthearded correction of a common mistake or (b) an abrasive, or a personal remark.

Three things would immediately support the former over the latter. Firstly, the post to which he was responding was itself a joke directed at nobody in particular, least of all John Sugrue
Secondly, as you alluded to yourself when discussing your username, young adults can be very familiar with 'offensive' language, so one would expect something designed to cause offense to be a little more abrasive than Mr Smartass, which i have never heard used in a serious context. What is more, a young person using it in a serious context is hardly likely to accompany such personal remarks with a pretty helpful tip on French syntax.

randylonghorn

You're quite right, it's all about context.

What we disagree about is the interpretation of the context here.

And I fear we will probably continue to disagree about it!

LoLth

Ok, this thread has gone full circle twice now. Locking as the infraction was not being questioned, the username was and that has been dealt with.