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

AH: Inconsistency in Moderating Standards

Options
  • 26-03-2012 7:43pm
    #1
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭


    So ....... it appears that I've received a day-long AH ban for wishing a certain fate on national treasure Eoghan Harris, involving a pack of wild dogs. I'm awaiting confirmation from the mod concerned, but I can't imagine it'd be about anything else.

    Now, I realise that the imagery may not be to everyone's tastes, and I'm almost willing to accept the ban with good grace.

    But it does stick in the craw slightly that disparaging remarks about a public figure like Harris ... who, to put it mildly, is no shrinking violet ... based on cogent reasoning, which I'd be happy to discuss at length, are out of bounds, but posters wishing death, torture and all other kinds of incivility on identifiable, or indeed generic "scumbags" goes on day-in, day-out, and no-one bats an eyelid.

    My point: Harris is a scumbag as bad as any of the rest of them, if they're fair game, then he should be fair game, equally. I note the approach taken in this thread, don't see bans being handed out when the abuse is being aimed at an easy target, in fact it seems that a mod went so far as to re-instate the said abuse:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056587794

    Personally, I'd be quite happy to see AH mods handing out bans for all "torture and kill the scumbag" type posts, but that isn't the case at the moment ... seems like you're affording protected status to pondlife like Harris?

    Consistency, please. That is all I ask.

    Right, rant off. I may well dispute this, although it seems kinda pointless, seeing as the ban will likely have expired by the time the mod in question even gets back to me ... and, to be fair, I could probably do with getting off the internet and doing some work.

    Still, though, something for you to consider.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    This should probably be in the DRP forum.

    Here are the posts OP was banned for, particularly the last part of the second post.
    The most fawning, the most sycophantic of them all. God, I really hate that guy.
    But he's so much worse. Reading that article makes me want to hunt him down and rip his head off, wherever he may be.
    I can't believe he's still so fcking smug about the whole thing, after everything that's happened. Fck off Harris, I hope you get raped by a pack of wild dogs.


  • Options
    #3
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    Hi OP. Are you disputing your deserved ban? If so you should probably follow the process on your ban PM. :)


  • Options
    #4
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Have done, for reasons set out in the post in the dispute resolution forum - btw, I'm not disputing that the wild dogs bit was ott, although clearly tongue in cheek, would have been quite happy to accept the ban on that basis.

    That was until I logged out and went to check back on the thread in question to see if this was the problem, and I had a look at some of the posts in the "skangers" and Steve Collins threads.

    It just bothers me that one standard apparently applies to the likes of Eoghan Harris, another to "skangers".


  • Options
    #5
    LoLth
    Registered Users Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    closing this thread pending DRP resolution.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement