Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'
Options
Comments
-
There's a genuine problem on the forum with Global Warming denialists. This is why the forum is quite heavily moderated. That doesn't mean that the current moderation is correct, only that there is a need for strict moderation there.
We need more detail if we're going to look into this though. I really do not have the time to trawl through the entire forum.
I don't see how you can make a concise statement that a problem exists in relation to so called "denialists" on the forum, and yet stand back and call for more info so that in the finest Sir Humphrey tradition, you (collectively) can "look into" it, because despite your seeming certainty about one issue, you need individual and multiple citations when another is brought to you.
I'm not digging at you nesf, but if you don't have time to drill down on an issue such as this, then you should ask someone else to deal with this matter. Am I right in thinking there are two Cmods to each category now?0 -
I don't see how you can ban the discussion of 'denialism'. It would be like banning a discussion between Evoluton and Creationism. Point being, that Global Warming has it's skeptics, and they should be permitted a platform to engage and enquire. I would think those who are read up on global warming would have no problem explaining it, or challenging denialism, on a regular basis. Just as I don't have a problem with political challenges, as I find they are 90% of the fun of partaking in the politics forums.0
-
I don't see how you can ban the discussion of 'denialism'. It would be like banning a discussion between Evoluton and Creationism. Point being, that Global Warming has it's skeptics, and they should be permitted a platform to engage and enquire. I would think those who are read up on global warming would have no problem explaining it, or challenging denialism, on a regular basis. Just as I don't have a problem with political challenges, as I find they are 90% of the fun of partaking in the politics forums.
The problem seems to be there are a few boards aimed at sustainability & Environmental issues as another poster pointed out, but they are more aimed at the green side of things.
Climate change challengers aren't really going to be welcome there for long because after a while, like an Atheist in a Christianity forum or a libertarian in a socialist ideology thread everybody gets bored of the endless argument, except the zealot trying to right all that is wrong in the world.
We've a Conspiracy theory forum but that doesn't fit. A pointless discussion board?
A board for posters who earnestly believe what they post to have round and round debates on that go on forever, the rest of us can regain the will to live?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
In case its not clear, I'd like to add that this is not a Global warming believer vs denialist argument. I am as close as is possible to being fully sure GW is real and is caused by humans. However I also think that the moderation in S& EI is heavy handed, patronising and counterproductive to debate.0
-
In case its not clear, I'd like to add that this is not a Global warming believer vs denialist argument. I am as close as is possible to being fully sure GW is real and is caused by humans. However I also think that the moderation in S& EI is heavy handed, patronising and counterproductive to debate.
+1
The problem is the endless argument thread. Users of the "Sustainability & Environmental issues" board have seen it all before, it's a pointless debate.
It's like Soccer, somebody coming on there and saying the GAA is better isn't going to last long, and vice versa.
Some opinions just aren't welcome. A Religion debate in politics will be moved to Christianity, Islam or whatever.
Doesn't mean anybody is wrong or oppressed!
"A deniers of the mainstream truth" forum though that would end up in arguments!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
+1
The problem is the endless argument thread. Users of the "Sustainability & Environmental issues" board have seen it all before, it's a pointless debate.
It's like Soccer, somebody coming on there and saying the GAA is better isn't going to last long, and vice versa.
Some opinions just aren't welcome. A Religion debate in politics will be moved to Christianity, Islam or whatever.
Doesn't mean anybody is wrong or oppressed!
"A deniers of the mainstream truth" forum though that would end up in arguments!
I disagree.
It shouldn't be like following a religion or soccer club. Surely belief in a scientific phenomenon should be based on evidence, and not a die-hard, stick-to-my-guns til the bitter end faith?0 -
I disagree.
It shouldn't be like following a religion or soccer club. Surely belief in a scientific phenomenon should be based on evidence, and not a die-hard, stick-to-my-guns til the bitter end faith?
Never said otherwise.
The problem is when a die hard, stick to my guns until the bitter end faith meet! It's not going to end with them holding hands. It just goes over and and over and good posters leave the "Sustainability & Environmental" board.
Personally I'd just consign all those debates to a sticky thread and let them at it! That doesn't work, the zealots have to spread their opinion far and wide.
A "truth denier" forum? We've plenty of boards for green issues etc. I can see a huge demand for it. Though maybe all the truth deniers will get bored on a single board with nothing to deny?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Never said otherwise.
The problem is when a die hard, stick to my guns until the bitter end faith meet! It's not going to end with them holding hands. It just goes over and and over and good posters leave the "Sustainability & Environmental" board.
Personally I'd just consign all those debates to a sticky thread and let them at it! That doesn't work, the zealots have to spread their opinion far and wide.
A "truth denier" forum? We've plenty of boards for green issues etc. I can see a huge demand for it. Though maybe all the truth deniers will get bored on a single board with nothing to deny?
The problem is not just with GW deniers.
You get people who come along and say something along the lines:
New User " Theres a new windfarm being set up down the road from me. I'm worried that there's going to be loud noise, and my property value will erode????"
Mod: Provide studies which show property prices are adversely affected by windfarms!
New User: "Well its just what I've heard from a friend of mine who used to live in Belgium.
Mod: OP has 1 day to provide evidence after which thread will be locked
Mod:Thread locked
Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens, but I'm sure plenty of people recognize the pattern.0 -
The problem is not just with GW deniers.
You get people who come along and say something along the lines:
New User " Theres a new windfarm being set up down the road from me. I'm worried that there's going to be loud noise, and my property value will erode????"
Mod: Provide studies which show property prices are adversely affected by windfarms!
New User: "Well its just what I've heard from a friend of mine who used to live in Belgium.
Mod: OP has 1 day to provide evidence after which thread will be locked
Mod:Thread locked
Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens, but I'm sure plenty of people recognize the pattern.
You are going to get pro Sustainability & Environmental answers in that particular board.
Personally I'd think a few seasoned users should provide evidence first as it's a specialist board. Let them read it and come back with questions.
It's easy blaming the mods though.
If Permabear set up a Libertarian forum I'd expect Socialists continually arguing negatively given short shrift. It isn't the argument that is wrong, it's the same poster soap boxing and arguing the same point over and over that gets tiresome.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
ei.esdraob will back Permabear and vice versa. They are libertarians and usually back each other, couple of others likewise.
Socialists tend to back each other, Republicans etc.
I really don't know how you get around this.
Personally I'd say a right wing forum and let them split and define themselves and what they are for.
They easily know what they are against.
Let them decide what they are for.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, on the issue of noise, theres a lot to talk about there. Not just from the noise you can hear, but the noise you cant:The problem is not just with GW deniers.
You get people who come along and say something along the lines:
New User " Theres a new windfarm being set up down the road from me. I'm worried that there's going to be loud noise, and my property value will erode????"
Mod: Provide studies which show property prices are adversely affected by windfarms!
New User: "Well its just what I've heard from a friend of mine who used to live in Belgium.
Mod: OP has 1 day to provide evidence after which thread will be locked
Mod:Thread locked
Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens, but I'm sure plenty of people recognize the pattern.
http://www.capenews.net/communities/region/news/454
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3806588
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1452529/Wind-farms-make-people-sick-who-live-up-to-a-mile-away.html
http://gizmodo.com/5824630/australian-farmers-claim-new-wind-farms-are-making-them-sickElectrical engineer Graeme Hood from the University of Ballarat was called in to investigate and, found that the turbines actually produced sound at a frequency too low for humans to hear. "The brain thinks it's quiet, but the ears may be telling you something else or the body may be telling you something else, it's much louder," he said. However, this finding has done little more than further stoke the already contentious fight between wind farm supporters and detractors . The government is has ordered further scientific testing as to the safety of wind farms.
Claims both recent, and seasoned.0 -
You get similar behavior in most forums, it doesn't mean they should be ostracized for it.ei.esdraob will back Permabear and vice versa. They are libertarians and usually back each other, couple of others likewise.0 -
Are the mods of SE&I aware of this thread? It may be disingenuous to continue this discussion without them.0
-
RoundyMooney wrote: »I don't see how you can make a concise statement that a problem exists in relation to so called "denialists" on the forum, and yet stand back and call for more info so that in the finest Sir Humphrey tradition, you (collectively) can "look into" it, because despite your seeming certainty about one issue, you need individual and multiple citations when another is brought to you.
I'm not digging at you nesf, but if you don't have time to drill down on an issue such as this, then you should ask someone else to deal with this matter. Am I right in thinking there are two Cmods to each category now?
Simple. As a CMod I've had to deal with cases where denialists were genuinely a problem on that forum (and other forums) and as such know first hand why heavier moderation is needed because some posters were not there to debate or deal with facts but preach whatever nonsense they got into their heads and ignore any evidence put forward to counter it. Such posters are a problem on any serious forum.
Not all Climate Change denialists are like this or behave like this but if someone is serially ignoring the evidence then there's an issue where a person can be banned on good grounds.
There's 3 CMods in Soc because it's so busy, the norm is 2. Dades is the third. If people don't like what I think on this, don't want to bring in Scofflaw because he's openly a Green, they can ask Dades to take a look too before asking for the Admins to look at it, if they want.
I'm asking for more evidence because I recognise that there could be stuff going on that I'm not aware of, because I only tend to see what's brought to the DRP forum or to my attention by PM.0 -
-
This post had been deleted.
This is not a newspaper, we do not operate on the grounds that arguments from authority are valid. He would be expected to provide some evidence to back up that the matter is "grossly exaggerated" or else he could be sanctioned. This is no different to Politics where if you make factual claims you are expected to be able to back them up or your claims will be removed and if you continue doing it your access to the forum will be limited.
The New York Times, due to its readership might be interested in providing "balance" in coverage and op/eds on the topic, forums on this site are under no such compulsion.This post had been deleted.
1) My job isn't to micromanage forums, that's the mods job and it's up to the users of the forum to keep them honest through threads like these.
2) I'm responsible for 81 forums and counting, there is no way I can have the time to keep up to date with what's going on in all of them.
3) It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask people who profess to have a problem to provide examples of what's they're complaining about.0 -
I'm not sure why being a "denialist" should pose a problem, any more than being a "credulist" might be a problem. It's a perfectly respectable position to hold, and even if it might not coincide with my own views, I wonder what it the genuine problem denialists pose on the forum? Can you explain why they pose such a problem which no one else seems to be accused of posing?
I wonder how you know that there is a genuine problem with global warming denialists, if you also haven't time have read the forum?
Is it possible that the moderators have told you that, in their view, there is a "genuine problem with denialists"? If so, that goes some way to add credibility to those above who claim bias.
I can't be the only reader here who is horrified that you hint it's ok for someone charged with moderating a forum, to be biased against someone whose views oppose their own views.
I've reviewed cases of problem denailists first hand in both that forum and other forums. Thus I'm speaking from experience. Some denialists are a problem because they willfully ignore science and fact. Those kinds of posters are not welcome in any serious forum, regardless of their viewpoint.0 -
Isn't some of the science we're talking about here evn being challenged in the scientific community? The topic at hand isn't exactly as settled as Gravity or Metabolism.I've reviewed cases of problem denailists first hand in both that forum and other forums. Thus I'm speaking from experience. Some denialists are a problem because they willfully ignore science and fact. Those kinds of posters are not welcome in any serious forum, regardless of their viewpoint.
Don't get me wrong I agree we're affecting our climate but people have the right to challenge the science (provided it's done in the same matter as any other soc forum)0 -
Basically this and I've no doubt a poster linking to that or other similar non tinfoil references would likely receive a warning or more, or one of the usual "lets round on a poster and smartarse/bully/keep screaming about links/nitpick same because we don't agree"(not just prevalent in that forum either). It's either a discussion on both sides or it's not. It appears to be not. It's either a discussion based around a starting premise all agree on like one of the spiritual forums or other specialty forums, or it's not. It appears to be the latter. If this is the case reflect that in the charter of the forum. IE this is about a pro global warning forum and no discussion of the anti side will be tolerated. Simples. That way passers by don't get red carded and banned.
Depends on context. That article is an profile of one of the few genuine scientists questioning the global warming consensus. If presented as that, and presented as a genuine questioning on scientific grounds of the consensus the poster shouldn't be sanctioned. If the poster misrepresents it as evidence that there's a problem with the consensus and that the consensus should be abandoned or that it is useless then there is a problem. The main one being that the poster doesn't get how science works and doesn't get the relevance of someone like Dyson here.
Dyson isn't a climate change denialist, what he says does not support said denialists, what he's doing is effectively peer-reviewing quite harshly the theory but he knows he can be wrong and he's open to being swayed by evidence. That last part is what separates someone who has a place on that forum from someone who doesn't. If someone comes in, having already made their mind up that climate change is wrong, and is not open to being swayed by evidence and not open to thinking they could be wrong then they're just a soapboxer and the mods are correct in getting rid of them. They are no Dyson Freedman, they are just as bad as a Creationist on an Evolution forum.
This is complicated precisely because there's space for intelligent dissent against the Climate Change Consensus but that does not mean that any denialist of Climate Change should be welcome into the forum with whatever mishandled grasp of science they can manage to cobble together.0 -
Isn't some of the science we're talking about here evn being challenged in the scientific community? The topic at hand isn't exactly as settled as Gravity or Metabolism.
Don't get me wrong I agree we're affecting our climate but people have the right to challenge the science (provided it's done in the same matter as any other soc forum)
Thats the problem OH, to offer the status quo is fine, to offer something contrary to that requires strong evidence, without which you face infractions and bans. (Being pro AGW I have yet to receive this treatment.)0 -
Advertisement
-
Depends on context. That article is an profile of one of the few genuine scientists questioning the global warming consensus. If presented as that, and presented as a genuine questioning on scientific grounds of the consensus the poster shouldn't be sanctioned. If the poster misrepresents it as evidence that there's a problem with the consensus and that the consensus should be abandoned or that it is useless then there is a problem. The main one being that the poster doesn't get how science works and doesn't get the relevance of someone like Dyson here.
Dyson isn't a climate change denialist, what he says does not support said denialists, what he's doing is effectively peer-reviewing quite harshly the theory but he knows he can be wrong and he's open to being swayed by evidence. That last part is what separates someone who has a place on that forum from someone who doesn't. If someone comes in, having already made their mind up that climate change is wrong, and is not open to being swayed by evidence and not open to thinking they could be wrong then they're just a soapboxer and the mods are correct in getting rid of them. They are no Dyson Freedman, they are just as bad as a Creationist on an Evolution forum.
This is complicated precisely because there's space for intelligent dissent against the Climate Change Consensus but that does not mean that any denialist of Climate Change should be welcome into the forum with whatever mishandled grasp of science they can manage to cobble together.
I agree nesf, and the way to challenge the miguided beliefs is to challenge them on thread like a regular user, rather tham: provide evidence for the above claim or you will be banned as per charter.0 -
Isn't some of the science we're talking about here evn being challenged in the scientific community? The topic at hand isn't exactly as settled as Gravity or Metabolism.
Don't get me wrong I agree we're affecting our climate but people have the right to challenge the science (provided it's done in the same matter as any other soc forum)
I'd wholeheartedly support intelligent dissent on this topic, but 99% of what I see from denialists on forums is not this. You have to be pretty bloody well informed scientifically or mathematically to begin to dissent intelligently here.
e.g. I have problems with the models used to calculate possible climate change effects, since this is an area I've some experience in. It's not that they're trying to mislead people, it's just an immensely hard thing to model and they're forced to use techniques that are not pin-point accurate. Thing is, it would be entirely wrong for me to dismiss the consensus because the models aren't perfect, it just doesn't work that way, but some individual might do that if they had only a poor grasp on how mathematical modelling works.0 -
Re "Fussy moderation" and worse, I think this thread is a good example of what's bad about the moderation on the S&EI board:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056138110
Moderation whilst heavily involved in discussion
Personal comments from moderators to posters
Moderators calling scientific papers "crap" (this included an ICE (Institute of Civil Enginerrs) Telford Gold Award winning paper by Hugh Sharmon)
An apparent reluctance by moderators to acknowledge facts put before them A blinkered attitude from moderators resulting in a lack of reason and logic and an inability to follow the discussion etc
You name it, it's on this thread and I think it makes sorry reading.
Here's another example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056053591
there's a complete sense of humour failure by the moderator and I think their anger starts to really show through when they are faced with information they don't like. Another trait of djpbarry's is to misquote posters and accuse them of saying things they haven't.
I'm not quite sure what's wrong with letting posters get on with it, are these boards for posters to share their information and points of view and to discuss these things and to educate each other or are they an advert for moderators views.0 -
I used to post a bit in the Forum.. but like a lot of others here I found the Moderation to be overzealous...
Ther was too much my opinion is right and if you want to argue with me either have an encyclopedia of information and nearly pre approved external quotes which I will demand you to provide.. and if you dont you can be sure the Mod stick appears....
in the end, i post very very little there......
its sad the way the Forum went0 -
It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask people who profess to have a problem to provide examples of what's they're complaining about.
I think these to links provide examples of the problem:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056138110
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056053591
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056225183
And here's the resulting dispute resolution thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20562759720 -
No one is suggesting that the Sustainability & Environmental forums should not be moderated. Remember, here, what is being discussed is that the Sustainability & Environmental forums are being over-moderated in a biased way, and the moderators are not there, in fact, to moderate, but appear to be there to treat the forum as their own personal fiefdom, and to ensure that anyone whose opinion disagrees with their opinions is bullied, harassed, and generally scolded.Simple. As a CMod I've had to deal with cases where denialists were genuinely a problem on that forum (and other forums) and as such know first hand why heavier moderation is needed because some posters were not there to debate or deal with facts but preach whatever nonsense they got into their heads and ignore any evidence put forward to counter it. Such posters are a problem on any serious forum.
That sounds like you are saying that, because you have had some (unspecified) problems in the (unspecified) past, then, in your opinion, it’s ok for moderators to be abusive and treat intelligent adults like naughty children?This is not a newspaper, we do not operate on the grounds that arguments from authority are valid. He would be expected to provide some evidence to back up that the matter is "grossly exaggerated" or else he could be sanctioned.
That sounds as if you think its ok for moderators here to bring their own personal prejudices to the forums here, and to bully and harass posters whose opinions differ from their own, and issue warnings and bans to the posters who continue to have the temerity to have view which differ from their own.2) I'm responsible for 81 forums and counting, there is no way I can have the time to keep up to date with what's going on in all of them.
Why did you accept the responsibility for 81 forums, if you are unable to be responsible for them? That doesn't seem very fair on you, or the 81 forums.I've reviewed cases of problem denailists first hand in both that forum and other forums. Thus I'm speaking from experience. Some denialists are a problem because they willfully ignore science and fact. Those kinds of posters are not welcome in any serious forum, regardless of their viewpoint.
I'm sure some people from many groups can, and many have, been problematic on boards. But to say that, because some people who are sceptical about global warming have, in the past, caused problems, then its ok for moderators to be biased, and to hound, bully, harass a anyone else who disagrees with them out of their forum for all time.
Just because many view, for example, djbarry's moderation to be biased and to cause problems for many intelligent and reasonable people, doesn't mean all moderators are the same.
In my world, we are able to get over stereotyping, and it's unusual that you seem to think because at some time in the past because you have had unspecified problems with some people, that anyone else who shares just one view in common with these people is a troublemaker. It’s a pretty weak argument and not one that many will not see through.
I’ve read what you have had to say so far carefully, and it seems to me you are dismissive of the views of so many others, and appears to be more concerned to back up the moderators and change the subject away from the issue, into other issues (like having had problems with some “denialists” in the past).
If that’s true, then it seems you are not concerned that so many posters have left the Sustainability & Environmental issues forums, and are more concerned with backing up the biased moderators. I hope that's not true.0 -
Chloe Pink wrote: »Re "Fussy moderation" and worse, I think this thread is a good example of what's bad about the moderation on the S&EI board:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056138110
Moderation whilst heavily involved in discussion
Personal comments from moderators to posters
Moderators calling scientific papers "crap" (this included an ICE (Institute of Civil Enginerrs) Telford Gold Award winning paper by Hugh Sharmon)
An apparent reluctance by moderators to acknowledge facts put before them A blinkered attitude from moderators resulting in a lack of reason and logic and an inability to follow the discussion etc
You name it, it's on this thread and I think it makes sorry reading.
Here's another example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056053591
there's a complete sense of humour failure by the moderator and I think their anger starts to really show through when they are faced with information they don't like. Another trait of djpbarry's is to misquote posters and accuse them of saying things they haven't.
I'm not quite sure what's wrong with letting posters get on with it, are these boards for posters to share their information and points of view and to discuss these things and to educate each other or are they an advert for moderators views.
Your behaviour in those threads is completely out of line at times. The moderator should leave the other moderator deal with it but as far as I can see you deserved each warning you were given in those threads. The first thread was already reviewed and it was found that your ban was fair and that you were not engaging constructively in the forum.0 -
No one is suggesting that the Sustainability & Environmental forums should not be moderated. Remember, here, what is being discussed is that the Sustainability & Environmental forums are being over-moderated in a biased way, and the moderators are not there, in fact, to moderate, but appear to be there to treat the forum as their own personal fiefdom, and to ensure that anyone whose opinion disagrees with their opinions is bullied, harassed, and generally scolded.
Saying the mods are biased is a bit like saying the Christianity mods are biased because they're Christians.That sounds like you are saying that, because you have had some (unspecified) problems in the (unspecified) past, then, in your opinion, it’s ok for moderators to be abusive and treat intelligent adults like naughty children?
Hardly.It sounds as if you think its ok for moderators here to bring their own personal prejudices to the forums here, and to bully and harass posters whose opinions differ from their own, and issue warnings and bans to the posters who continue to have the temerity to have view which differ from their own.
Quit putting words in my mouth thanks, I can speak for myself.Why did you accept the responsibility for 81 forums, if you are unable to be responsible for them? That doesn't seem very fair on you, or the 81 forums.
Because how it works is that I and others oversee the mods and deal with issues as they are brought to our attention. We are not required to pro-actively monitor the forums under us, the system doesn't work that way.I'm sure some people from many groups can, and many have, been problematic on boards. But to say that, because some people who are sceptical about global warming have, in the past, caused problems, then its ok for moderators to be biased, and to hound, bully, harass a anyone else who disagrees with them out of their forum for all time.
Just because many view, for example, djbarry's moderation to be biased and to cause problems for many intelligent and reasonable people, doesn't mean all moderators are the same.
In my world, we are able to get over stereotyping, and it's unusual that you seem to think because at some time in the past because you have had unspecified problems with some people, that anyone else who shares just one view in common with these people is a troublemaker. It’s a pretty weak argument and not one that many will not see through.
I’ve read what you have had to say so far carefully, and it seems to me you are dismissive of the views of so many others, and appears to be more concerned to back up the moderators and change the subject away from the issue, into other issues (like having had problems with some “denialists” in the past).
If that’s true, then it seems you are not concerned that so many posters have left the Sustainability & Environmental issues forums, and are more concerned with backing up the biased moderators. I hope that's not true.
Again, stop trying to portray how I think. If you want me to take your points seriously make them without alluding to me supporting certain positions that I have not said anything about supporting.0 -
Chloe Pink wrote: »I think these to links provide examples of the problem:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056138110
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056053591
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056225183
And here's the resulting dispute resolution thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275972
This has already been dealt with on DRP and it was not found in your favour. Please don't waste my time by having me reread the same threads again only to give you the same answer I gave you last time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Your behaviour in those threads is completely out of line at times. The moderator should leave the other moderator deal with it but as far as I can see you deserved each warning you were given in those threads. The first thread was already reviewed and it was found that your ban was fair and that you were not engaging constructively in the forum.
Of the two threads you are referring to here, neither were reviewed.
These were not the two threads I went to the dispute board with and when I did go to the dispute board the administrator wrote:
"I'm not going to rule that the it was wrong to ban you. I don't think its a clear-cut case...".
So please stop being fussy with your information.
However, this is not the point, this is not about whether my warnings, bans, infractions were reasonable, this is about whether the mods moderation is reasonable, for example, is it reasonable that a mod refer to an ICE Telford Gold Award winning paper as "crap"?
The lack of activity on the forum in question and the response of users to the forum speak for themselves.
You either do or don't want to help improve the quality of moderation on the S&EI forum. Trying to put down posters on this board is counterproductive and a symptom of the whole problem.0
Advertisement