Request For Feedback: Bullying

Brendan Flowers

All the talk so far seems to be about people bullying other Boards members. But what the online bullying of "celebs"? In particular there is a few Irish celebrities that get a serious amount of abuse here. Do the same people here that are against bullying other members think its ok to do it to famous people?

LoLth

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

All the talk so far seems to be about people bullying other Boards members. But what the online bullying of "celebs"? In particular there is a few Irish celebrities that get a serious amount of abuse here.

I'm not sure abuse directed at a celebrity can be classed as bullying. Unless the celebrity is actually/virtually there and posting and being abused or harrassed for doing so, in which case their celebrity status makes no difference, it becomes a boards.ie user bullying/abusing another boards.ie user.

Do the same people here that are against bullying other members think its ok to do it to famous people?

if they are the same thing then I think it stands to reason that , no, they dont think its ok. Are the two issues the same? (I dont think so but I'm open to correction)

If they are not the same issue then this question is not really relevant to a thread on bullying. It would be like me asking for opinions on soccer on a thread discussing the recently announced Rugby World Cup groups.

Earthhorse

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

All the talk so far seems to be about people bullying other Boards members. But what the online bullying of "celebs"? In particular there is a few Irish celebrities that get a serious amount of abuse here. Do the same people here that are against bullying other members think its ok to do it to famous people?

My short answer to this is, no, it's not okay to do this to famous people either, but that the kind of behaviour I suspect you're thinking of isn't really what's being discussed in this thread. It's a separate issue altogether.

Tragedy

I read an article recently on bullying in third level education. I won't bore people but tl;dr, inclusion/exclusion appears to be what most people who considered themselves to have been bullied cited as being the method used. Excluding people from groups is an incredibly powerful social tool, and something which (IME and in those around me) happens frequently on Boards.

Cliques are natural, but when they lead to exclusion (whether deliberate or accidental) they lead to people feeling...well.. bullied, ostracised, shunned.

As an aside, the proliferation of private forums has been a pox on boards. Whether broad private social forums, or private forums specifically for a public board, these are excluding any number of users (or members, hi Kharn!).

username123

Tragedy wrote: »

As an aside, the proliferation of private forums has been a pox on boards. Whether broad private social forums, or private forums specifically for a public board, these are excluding any number of users (or members, hi Kharn!).

I didnt even know there were private forums on boards? What is the purpose of that?

Markbrie

From reading all the posts on this topic it seems that there is no clear common definition as to what constitutes bullying on this site, This is not surprising as bullying is quite a subjective thing and is at the end of the day how someone is left feeling as a result of someone elses actions. With this in mind I feel it is the mods responsibility to set the tone/example, I say this only because I saw some posts from a mod who was openly taunting someone earlier today, But all in all a lot of sense being spoken here on this topic.

Tombi!

username123 wrote: »

I didnt even know there were private forums on boards? What is the purpose of that?

Well one is the sexuality forum which you need to be a subscriber to see (or a mod I think).
Another is soccer (which it's soccer so you can understand) because of the fact that soccer fans can get a bit... emotional about fans of opposing teams.
I think there's a grammar forum that's dedicated to picking out mistakes in other people's grammar. And people might get upset at that so it's also private.

Madam_X

Speaking of bullying: That locked thread here on Feedback about the person posting vile sectarian remarks is really disappointing. Out and out ganging up and ridiculing (i.e. bullying) of a person who is making a reasonable point.
The issue is not the person being unionist (completely disingenuous to say that's what's deemed the problem) but sectarian and bigoted. So what if they're the mod of another forum? They're a mod - and visibly so; therefore they should comply with a particular standard. And not being a mod in the forums they don't mod should not be taken advantage of.

wasam0d

Mods get bullied too and it's not just that thread.

Often posters/users/members take a dislike and can be a pest on the forums they mod making it impossible for them to contribute as a poster or to function as a mod as the poster will try and paint it as if the mod has the issue when it's them. But it's not called bullying or pointed out as that when it is. It is esp clear when they are a repeat offender on the cluster of forums which the mod happens to mod, back after a 3/6/12 month ban and they take a pop.


That is the behavior of bullies. They like to demean, belittle and drag people down. work to make the forum or indeed the site so hostile and the person so raw that they have to walk away.

Sometimes, people aren't even aware of what they are doing is bullying behavior. 'I only said...' 'but you made me so angry' esp when you are the one pointing out things they don't want to hear or they have mismanaged or mishandled or ignored your warnings about.

That is the stuff which is harder to take then the generic obscene tirades of trolls.

The site is now bigger then ever and I doubt there are any more supports for mods when when I was one and ended up being a support for others but there is only so much any person can take. With the user base ratio to mod ratio being so huge even with there being what 500 mods now, that just makes it harder for mods to communicate and for them to let each other know what they should not have to put up with, from users, fellow mods or even admins.


Cos really it takes so few to poison the well, to try and push you out of the herd and then your seen as trouble and you may as well quit cos it's just not worth it.

Boards.ie has needed a clear cut, spelled policy on bullying for years.
There needs to be a clear path on who to make a complaint to, it's all well and good saying contact any mod, some of them mod small hassle free forums, don't check the mods forum and may not have banned anyone in over a year. So they won't know what to do or how to get a poster help.

There needs to be policy, and procedure and for it to be easily found on the site and used. Being a dick doesn't cover it any more, it's a phrase which most don't/won't get. The user base is too big to play forward the culture which there was on boards and unless adjustments are made pockets will create it's own which are too out of step with the site as a whole and then it's pokergate all over again, in which one forum tried to bully another.

Those who are being bullied are under attack and often in the most insidious ways so they can find it hard believe what is happening to them and so it is harder for them to reach out. Make it stupid simple, and drawn a line that bullying behavior will not be tolerated.

Sometimes it is intentional, when it's not afford the person who has over stepped the mark to learn from it, if possible with out stigma but crack down on the arseholes and the waltermittys who have made a misery of people's lives. Esp when that sort end up in private forums.

Rules/guidlines should be put in place for private forums, if the Hmods don't have the balls/spine to cut out the cancer in their little groups midst then they shouldn't have 'control' of the forum.

Once upon a time this site was small enough that the people you knew, knew people who knew people and that was the whole site. These days due to numbers and the diversity of the site that is just not possible. Long gone are the days when you can take people at face value which is a shame, which is made even more so by people treating accounts as disposable.

Devore got what he wanted, what he envisioned in that exchange with Cloud, a forum for everyone to talk/chat/discuss monsters daddy is right.
The site is to big to be stopped at this stage (bar a court ordered take down) but the more good people who get burnt, driven away or feel unsupported then the place will go like bebo.


TL;DR

Policy & procedures for all, make them stupid simple or the site will keep loosing good people.

P.S. the welcome note for new accounts mentions to the now defunct boards wiki, it really should be removed.

looksee

Originally Posted by looksee

There is a tendency in some of the tecky forums for people to try and blind you with science and then get shirty if you ask for an explanation. That's just ignorance on their part, but if that is the way they want to run the forum and the mod approves, then so be it.

Originally posted by nompere
I've taken this out of a longer post, because I think it's a very important point. The first part of the final sentence is fine - it is indeed ignorance - but I think the second part is plain wrong.

It might be a technical forum, but it is a public part of the site, and neither the posters who want to run a thing their way, nor the mods who condone it, have a right to exclude other posters. A mod who allows such behaviour needs censuring, and needs reminding that any poster is entitled to simple courtesy when asking a question.

I see what nompere is saying here and to some extent I agree with him. However it is arguable that people should be able to have technical discussions without people who don't know anything about the subject looking for a response to a question that is so basic it is off the bottom of the scale for a technical question. How you do this without being dismissive I am not sure.

Markbrie

Maybe the best way is to be polite and to remember that even the person who is being asked had to learn it somewhere. I know it can be frustrating but I guess it comes down to patience.

Dravokivich

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

All the talk so far seems to be about people bullying other Boards members. But what the online bullying of "celebs"? In particular there is a few Irish celebrities that get a serious amount of abuse here. Do the same people here that are against bullying other members think its ok to do it to famous people?

There have been countless threads about the subject, even your previous thread Discussing people who aren't here to defend themselves would carry a similar idea to it. Just because people are known publicly does not mean they should be open to baseless ridicule and abuse. It will put boards.ie in a bad light if it was to be allowed here. So they don't. Mainly because it's not what boards is about. As mentioned by someone else, bullying would require some form of contact to the person being bullied, so it's not being discouraged due to that. It's about how the community and its members are perceived through association with Boards.ie.

Regarding bullying within boards.ie,
That's a bit of a though nugget when as mentioned, it can be rather subtle. A friend of mine who used to post here got bullied really subtly by tags referring to them being placed on a lot of threads through various forums here. It took a bit of time for them to go forward about it, because there was no way for a regular member to see who was doing it. On the face of it, it was possible in this instance for the bullying to go on with the bullier hidden from the victim.

RDM_83 again

Firstly I have to second Madam X's post, and make the point that feedback has improved massively over the years its still mainly ran and posted in by the same people that used to think pages and pages of LOLCATS were an appropriate response to "less involved" user concerns
(as a general point I'm probably unusually I find a lot of Boards.ie better the more corporate it has become )

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think that repeatedly posting "unpopular" opinions would be trolling.
There's an unpopular opinions thread in AH now and the mod note states (paraphrased): "if your opinion is too unpopular then you shouldn't post it".

I suppose the community reacting the same way to the same person that's posting the same type of threads/opinions is more of a "you really shouldn't be posting these opinions" rather than "you should let this person express an opinion that'll annoy other people".

At the end of the day, if I'm going to come into the single parenting forum and start posting with the opinion that single parents are bad and two parents will always be better, then that's more of me lacking common sense. I could back up my opinions with hundreds of hundreds of links, articles, studies, etc but it's not going to be welcome in that forum.
If someone is being "bullied" by posting something that'll rile up the community, it's really that users fault if they keep on doing it.

As for being followed across threads, I suppose it's really just a "do these posters normally post in the forums they're now going to" and in either case, are the responses by them being aimed at the same person and it is escalating to flames or trolling quickly and if it is, who's more responsible. Of course, a case-by-case basis is a necessity I think.

Ok while I agree with the need for thick skins I don't think the example you gave is quiet correct.

I don't think the issue people have is there being unwelcome opinions on the forums that one would be expect there to be such a reaction, e.g posting something from Leviticus in the LGBT forums or conversely posting something from some of the LGBT forums in the Christianity one*.

Rather its that in forums that appear that they should represent a broader demographic, e.g AH, TLL,TGC** (the TGC does seem to have a greater pluraity of opinion though), there appears to be an acceptable narrative and an unacceptable one (in relation to certain hot topic issues) where a user unfamiliar with these forums might legitimately feel they are being bullied as the opinions they express would not be considered particularly unusual in real life Ireland, in particular this feeling would be exasperated when mods posting in the capacity as users (in their own forums etc) weigh in on the "acceptable narrative" side.

Now while it may sound like I'm trying to pull the thread of topic and onto a different and more controversial avenue,but I do feel that like any of the various ---isms bullying is something where an external examiner doesn;t really have the privilege to tell another what they are experiencing. This said I enjoy heated debate and don;t mind arguing against the flow (but I also feel that I've never been bullied in any situation).
And its also not necessary either, I'm sure some other Nationalists/Republicans (not same thing!) apart from myself will remember the politics forum of the late 2000's being a very unwelcoming place to be, I feel its presently much better without loosing any of the heated debate (trench warfare!) simply due to better stronger more clear cut rules evenly applied as well as some key changes in the moderation team.

Only two short more focused points as most of my other ones have already been covered by others in this thread.

1) I'm not sure of the minimum age of users but I know I would argue and post with greater sensitivity if I knew there was a likelyhood the poster was 13-17, and I feel most people would by default think that other posters are at least 18+

2) I'm aware of one poster who i;m sure any politics and AH mods will be aware of who's name is often referenced in relation to CT/out there stories, I don;t think the intent is bullying at all but it could be definitely be construed as such by the user being name checked in a thread he's not part of. (I have reported a post from today where this occurred so if the AH mods feel its ok I'l ad it later in thread.


*Using this as a general example btw I know there is deeply Christian gay people

** as a feedback aside, as a user its really annoying the way some threads hop between these three forums (and humanities too)

PC CDROM

Madam_X wrote: »

Speaking of bullying: That locked thread here on Feedback about the person posting vile sectarian remarks is really disappointing. Out and out ganging up and ridiculing (i.e. bullying) of a person who is making a reasonable point.
The issue is not the person being unionist (completely disingenuous to say that's what's deemed the problem) but sectarian and bigoted. So what if they're the mod of another forum? They're a mod - and visibly so; therefore they should comply with a particular standard. And not being a mod in the forums they don't mod should not be taken advantage of.

Rozie

RDM_83 again

Ouch I'd never read that thread before! It certainly shows the forum in a bad light considering the very large amount of mods and 'higher' involved even Devores post would probably be taken as bullying/attacking the poster today.

Rozie, people arent disliking you because you are a transvestite. People are disliking you because you are goddamn annoying and never shut up with the whinging and the bitching and the ranting. Seriously, chill and stop fighting *everyone*.

DeV.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Rozie, people arent disliking you because you are a transvestite. People are disliking you because you are goddamn annoying and never shut up with the whinging and the bitching and the ranting. Seriously, chill and stop fighting *everyone*.

DeV.

Considering the situation and looong background to that particular story Dev's post pretty much sums it up RDM. For me anyway.

Not everyone is the object of bullying, just because they call it as such, not everyone is a "victim" just because they call it as such. Some people, thankfully rare, even when given an incredible amount of leeway, still find a way to break life's "don't be a dick" rule. That's not bullying, that's calling it as it is and hopefully something might get through to the object of such a call. Hope sprang at the time. I see it this way; if one person tells you you smell, ignore them, if twenty people tell you you smell, buy soap.

*EDIT* as far as others being dicks in the thread and breaking the "don't be" rule hereabouts, the penultimate post is Beruthiel pointing out dickism and the very last post is Ecksor handing out bans to five people. So it's not much of an example, even given the OP was in extremis and a PITA/Timesink troll in the first place.

PC CDROM

Wibbs wrote: »

Considering the situation and looong background to that particular story Dev's post pretty much sums it up RDM. For me anyway.

Not everyone is the object of bullying, just because they call it as such, not everyone is a "victim" just because they call it as such. Some people, thankfully rare, even when given an incredible amount of leeway, still find a way to break life's "don't be a dick" rule. That's not bullying, that's calling it as it is and hopefully something might get through to the object of such a call. Hope sprang at the time. I see it this way; if one person tells you you smell, ignore them, if twenty people tell you you smell, buy soap.

*EDIT* as far as others being dicks in the thread and breaking the "don't be" rule hereabouts, the penultimate post is Beruthiel pointing out dickism and the very last post is Ecksor handing out bans to five people. So it's not much of an example, even given the OP was in extremis and a PITA/Timesink troll in the first place.

No one is a bully. Perspective and time past.

Nice edit too.

Would you like more?

RDM_83 again

I think you've completely misunderstood me, if the person involved had genuine personality issues/ trolling they should have simply be sitebanned quickly (and I hope they would be now), not subject to twelve pages of abuse that would land users in court these days if posted on Facebook.
A different time time back then when you could have stuff like as the first two posts to a feed back thread no matter how obnoxious a poster is

"a roze by any other name would want to chop it's testicles off"


"Someone please give this chick a serious deep dickin."

I'm sorry but if some one is annoying you ignore them you don't start insulting them, if somebody has personality issues you definitely don;t do that.

Edit: This comment was directed at Wibbs previous post not PC_CDROMS (stupid getting distracted)

TheFisherKing

Wibbs wrote: »

I see it this way; if one person tells you you smell, ignore them, if twenty people tell you you smell, buy soap.

That is a nonsense attitude to take but one which many bullies subscribe to, not surprisingly, as it allows them to absolve themselves of any guilt they should be feeling for pushing others around.

They feel, because others (who they are usually influencing) are also personally attacking a person and accusing them of x,y and z, then they must be right for doing so. Such people rarely if ever check their own behavior and when challenged on what they may have said and even shown how it is unwarranted, they will still see themselves as having done no wrong.

Bullies rarely if ever act alone. They are invariably have numbers on their side for the simply reason that the payoff for most bullies is the reaction of the gallery that they are undoubtedly playing to. Anyone that has ever been bullied will tell you that the most frustrating aspect of it is when those around the bully/bullies don't examine the accusations of bullying and instead close ranks, or worse, join in.

Some people, thankfully rare, even when given an incredible amount of leeway, still find a way to break life's "don't be a dick" rule.

Mods and admin can be dicks also and the thing about bullying is that it is much easier to get away with when you have power over another. The average user on Boards has very little or no power. If they bully and harass a user, it's almost impossible for them to get away with. Contrast that with those that have the power to moderate a user, ban a user, remove a user and discuss users in front of a group out of the sight of regular users and you have an enormous capacity to bully those which you have a personal problem with.

I'm not saying that it goes on much, but go on it does.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

And its also not necessary either, I'm sure some other Nationalists/Republicans (not same thing!) apart from myself will remember the politics forum of the late 2000's being a very unwelcoming place to be, I feel its presently much better without loosing any of the heated debate (trench warfare!) simply due to better stronger more clear cut rules evenly applied as well as some key changes in the moderation team.

Tbh I don't think moderation of those threads has changed that much, maybe our perceptions just are different.

2) I'm aware of one poster who i;m sure any politics and AH mods will be aware of who's name is often referenced in relation to CT/out there stories, I don;t think the intent is bullying at all but it could be definitely be construed as such by the user being name checked in a thread he's not part of. (I have reported a post from today where this occurred so if the AH mods feel its ok I'l ad it later in thread.


*Using this as a general example btw I know there is deeply Christian gay people

** as a feedback aside, as a user its really annoying the way some threads hop between these three forums (and humanities too)

That is something we are targeting on AH, it isn't something I'd have seen as a big problem but I think I've slowly been converted. It has to be implemented consistently IMO, nobody should be name checked mockingly in a thread they haven't participated in, and more than likely never read.

Lazarus2.0

TheFisherKing wrote: »

Bullies rarely if ever act alone. They are invariably have numbers on their side for the simply reason that the payoff for most bullies is the reaction of the gallery that they are undoubtedly playing to. Anyone that has ever been bullied will tell you that the most frustrating aspect of it is when those around the bully/bullies don't examine the accusations of bullying and instead close ranks, or worse, join in.

It's become very noticeable to me over the years - more so in recent years tbh - that internet users in general behave like lemmings . Whether on forums , online gaming , social media or whatever while many wouldn't lead the way in breaking rules / baiting other users / out and out harrassment they'll sure as hell jump on the bandwagon if there's something in it for them - be that getting away with a game exploit or being seen to be 'in with the crew' and every other shade of wrong in between (and beyond) . In the context of this thread the keyboard doesnt have a conscience and many of those doing the bullying wont even realise or consider that they are doing so .

TheFisherKing wrote: »

Mods and admin can be dicks also

No argument there . Power can and often does lead to abuse of power - that's a human failing and it would be naive to think boards mods/admin are somehow immune to that .
It's encouraging that this thread was started by Admin with a view to understanding and addressing the issue though . I see that as a statement in itself and regardless of what conclusions they might ultimately draw I doubt I'm alone in revising my hitherto very simplistic take on bullying in light of some of the excellent posts so far .

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think you've completely misunderstood me, if the person involved had genuine personality issues/ trolling they should have simply be sitebanned quickly (and I hope they would be now), not subject to twelve pages of abuse that would land users in court these days if posted on Facebook.
A different time time back then when you could have stuff like as the first two posts to a feed back thread no matter how obnoxious a poster is

"a roze by any other name would want to chop it's testicles off"


"Someone please give this chick a serious deep dickin."

I'm sorry but if some one is annoying you ignore them you don't start insulting them, if somebody has personality issues you definitely don;t do that.

Oh I agree, but as you point out it was a different time back then, even so that stuff was rare and even in that example bans were handed out. The difference today is that it would be far more proactive bans/thread closing than the reactive action of that example. That's a major improvement.

Lazarus2.0 wrote: »

It's become very noticeable to me over the years - more so in recent years tbh - that internet users in general behave like lemmings

I would argue that people behave like lemmings. However on Boards and other sites that take this kinda thing seriously that is far better controlled than it was a few years ago. Again an improvement.

No argument there . Power can and often does lead to abuse of power - that's a human failing and it would be naive to think boards mods/admin are somehow immune to that .

Again that was much more likely in the past. It was thankfully rare enough, but it did go on the odd time. Caused a few blowups over it too and things changed because it was raised by the community. The mod/admin volunteer group in the community has much more transparency and accountability going on than in did and everyone has more avenues to question issues that may arise. Boards is highly unusual in this.

It's encouraging that this thread was started by Admin with a view to understanding and addressing the issue though . I see that as a statement in itself and regardless of what conclusions they might ultimately draw I doubt I'm alone in revising my hitherto very simplistic take on bullying in light of some of the excellent posts so far .

+1.

Wibbs

To put things in perspective that linked thread was five years ago, that's an age around here. The site has changed a lot in that time. Attitudes and practices among the moderation layer at all levels have changed too. I'd be right behind you on the barricades if that thread happened today(and actually was when similar went down in the past), but it doesn't and IMHO using it as an example is a tad inaccurate and not a little redundant.

To give a bit of "the other side" to that example and there are others, sometimes(thank christ rarely) you do get people that are "timesinks" for the mods and disrupt the community for everyone else. What you're seeing there is for the most part sheer bloody frustration being vented. Wrongly yes and yes today it would be handled better and similar has been handled better. I suppose the site/community has learned that with some talking and giving leeway will never be enough.

That's another aspect to the debate, I can think of a number of such timesinks that were bullying mods, harrassing them, here and on other sites online. Some got to silly levels. I certainly know of a few mods who've stepped down, even closed accounts because of the hassle they were getting. It can most certainly go both ways.

K-9 wrote:

nobody should be name checked mockingly in a thread they haven't participated in, and more than likely never read.

+1. It's been the unwritten rule in the forums I've modded in and I've seen it applied in other forums too.

RDM_83 again wrote:

Rather its that in forums that appear that they should represent a broader demographic, e.g AH, TLL,TGC** (the TGC does seem to have a greater pluraity of opinion though), there appears to be an acceptable narrative and an unacceptable one (in relation to certain hot topic issues) where a user unfamiliar with these forums might legitimately feel they are being bullied as the opinions they express would not be considered particularly unusual in real life Ireland, in particular this feeling would be exasperated when mods posting in the capacity as users (in their own forums etc) weigh in on the "acceptable narrative" side.

I missed this point

On the tLL feedback thread I posted this;

On the subject of cliques, even "pack mentality" you're going to get something of that evolving in any community or group. People tend to gravitate towards a community mind on some subjects. Usually the headwreck ones of course. And those who may disagree will tend to avoid posting or if they do may be more the kinda folks who will be more thick skinned or robust in their responses. Goes for most forums on Boards. EG outside the religious forums(and even in there often enough) religion and the religious are usually sneered at all the way up to open hostility, though the latter nearly always gets actioned. On the Politics forums you could argue a certain slant from the community(it would be a different vibe to Politics.ie for example) and yes on the Ladies Lounge you get "biases" in the community in certain subjects. TLL would in very general terms be coming from a younger, liberal, agnostic, pro choice, pro divorce etc vibe than other places on the interweb.

I don't know how one could go about changing that RDM(on any forum), not unless the community itself changes. The only thing we can do is report posts where obvious sneering etc is obvious and stick vigorously to the attack the post not the poster rule. The handy thing about the site is if you have a particular opinion on a subject there's nearly always somewhere you can post and have some likeminded people chime in. No forum will ever be a one size fits all.

TheFisherKing

Wibbs wrote: »

everyone has more avenues to question issues that may arise.

When members are "dealt with" by Admin directly via PM and told precisely what they can and can't post and / or are banned from forums, then they have NO avenues to dispute the reasoning behind such moderation, none.

As mentioned previously, I am aware of one case of a young chap being contacted about his political views by Admin and told not to post x, y and z. He mentioned that he was going to start a DR thread and was then told that if he started one, it would be locked as Admin had already dealt with him. He carried on posting for a few months but then posted in a private forum and said he had enough of Boards and was going to close his account, which he did a short time later.

That's not the only example of it, there are a few and so this avenue that is open to Admin if and when they wish to moderate a member of Boards and yet leave them with no means of disputing that moderation, needs to be closed. I'm sure they can convince each other that a user is a "timesink" and/or is deserving of whatever moderation it is that they have dished out (away from prying eyes) but Admin should (IMO) have to show this on thread in the DRF, if a user feels they have been mistreated and unjustifiably moderated. Should be easy for them, if the user has done something deserving of it.

I understand that at times there might be some sensitive issues at hand and a user might have been contacted directly by admin and instructed not to do x, y & z because of off-thread behavior (abusive PMs, stalking a user etc) and so keeping that to PM is quite understandable but if on the other hand, the user has been moderated for the content of their posts and /or posting style, then that is not something that should be dealt with via PM to begin with, but if it is, then without question it should be open to dispute, otherwise it is an easy option for admin when they want someone out of a particular forum but don't fancy their chances should that user appeal.

If Boards is serious about wanting transparency with regards to how and when they moderate users (and avoid accusations of bullying) then direct Admin moderation (carried out via PM) should also be subject to the DR process in the same way that on-thread moderation is. Until such time that it is and admin moderation remains immune from being disputed in the DRF, then current level of transparency can only really be referred to as partial and not full.

Wibbs

Well I see one problem with that TFK, so far I've yet to see any user get admin attention that didn't already go through a back and forth with local mods/cmod first. That's how it rolls 99% of the time. It's damned rare anyone would come to the attention of any of the admins without them being flagged by local mods first because of issues with them locally. If nothing else because there's only a handful of them, so unless they happen to walk into a forum and spot what nobody else, locals, mods, cmods spotted then it's pretty unlikely.

Admin PM's are usually only when other avenues have been exhausted with someone. I say usually just on the off chance someone comes up with an example where this wasn't the case. I'll be surprised if someone does mind you. For a start the local mods wouldn't be too happy about it. If an admin PM'd an otherwise bang on person in one of the forums I modded I know I wouldn't and I'd not be alone in that.

But let's take your point about no debate with Admins. 1) if it's getting admins involved the issue isn't coming from nowhere, there is a fairly longstanding/serious issue and the back and forth has usually been well exhausted. 2) who do you suggest admins the admins? Other admins will stick their oar in if one of them goes OTT. Mods will kick up if one of them goes OTT. Admins have the beady eye on them from all sides, way more than mods do. Outside of that lot? The folks in the Boards office? Sure if it ever did get to that stage I'm sure that would happen but like I said I've yet to see anything like that.

TL;DR?

The buck has to stop somewhere and if said buck is landing on the admins desk it's passed through a fair few hands first.


BTW if you think I'm on a defend the admins kick to toe the party line, I'd suggest asking others more longstanding of my history on this site.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR?

The buck has to stop somewhere and if said buck is landing on the admins desk it's passed through a fair few hands first.


BTW if you think I'm on a defend the admins kick to toe the party line, I'd suggest asking others more longstanding of my history on this site.

And what really is the solution? Create another level of bureaucracy.

Wibbs

That was my point K. Another layer isn't needed as if a situation has reached that point it's already gone through all the steps.

Nodin

TheFisherKing wrote: »

When members are "dealt with" by Admin directly via PM and told precisely what they can and can't post and / or are banned from forums, then they have NO avenues to dispute the reasoning behind such moderation, none.

............
........
.

There has to be a 'supreme court' or ultimate authority in any system, and here the admins are it.

It might help to bear in mind theres no obligation on any board to provide arbitration and appeals on moderator decisions - its entirely up to the owners, be they private individuals or companies.

El Guapo!

I just flicked through the "Embarrassing Dads" thread in AH and I have to say there was, what I would consider, bullying behaviour in there that went unchecked as far as I can see.

A poster, Westendgirlie, posted a story about her father, and immediately she was jumped on by posters who consistently called her father a cúnt, and a bell-end. These posts were thanked by a lot of people and she tried to defend herself but was only met with more abuse.

Now it seems that Westendgirlie has closed her account, and her last post happens to be in that thread. It seems a bit of a coincidence that she closes her account immediately after being ganged up on and having her father called names in the forum.

I think this was a disgusting display by the posters in AH, even if they didn't like what happened in her story. And I think the mods should have stepped in and sorted it out earlier.

Madam_X

Grow a thick skin, use the ignore button - hate that crap. Grand if it's in relation to innocuous stuff, a person who annoys you etc... but if it's in relation to someone who's harassing you, then it's basically deflecting responsibility.

Super-Rush

Dean09 wrote: »

I just flicked through the "Embarrassing Dads" thread in AH and I have to say there was, what I would consider, bullying behaviour in there that went unchecked as far as I can see.

A poster, Westendgirlie, posted a story about her father, and immediately she was jumped on by posters who consistently called her father a cúnt, and a bell-end. These posts were thanked by a lot of people and she tried to defend herself but was only met with more abuse.

Now it seems that Westendgirlie has closed her account, and her last post happens to be in that thread. It seems a bit of a coincidence that she closes her account immediately after being ganged up on and having her father called names in the forum.

I think this was a disgusting display by the posters in AH, even if they didn't like what happened in her story. And I think the mods should have stepped in and sorted it out earlier.

It slipped through the net unfortunately.

None of us were very active last night and had gone outside for a change and by the time we saw it she had already closed her account.

We're discussing it at the moment.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

I just flicked through the "Embarrassing Dads" thread in AH and I have to say there was, what I would consider, bullying behaviour in there that went unchecked as far as I can see.

A poster, Westendgirlie, posted a story about her father, and immediately she was jumped on by posters who consistently called her father a cúnt, and a bell-end. These posts were thanked by a lot of people and she tried to defend herself but was only met with more abuse.

Now it seems that Westendgirlie has closed her account, and her last post happens to be in that thread. It seems a bit of a coincidence that she closes her account immediately after being ganged up on and having her father called names in the forum.

I think this was a disgusting display by the posters in AH, even if they didn't like what happened in her story. And I think the mods should have stepped in and sorted it out earlier.

.....you're rather exaggerating the tone and extent of it there.

And theres the fact that if somebody says something 'controversial' (eg "I kicked a dog") they'll be challenged on it by no small number of posters.

RDM_83 again

Ok there's a reason I referenced the forums I did

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't think the issue people have is there being unwelcome opinions on the forums that one would be expect there to be such a reaction, e.g posting something from Leviticus in the LGBT forums or conversely posting something from some of the LGBT forums in the Christianity one*.

Rather its that in forums that appear that they should represent a broader demographic,

Wibbs wrote: »

The handy thing about the site is if you have a particular opinion on a subject there's nearly always somewhere you can post and have some likeminded people chime in. No forum will ever be a one size fits all.

An example of this is the introduction of strict anti-sexism rules in relation to AH,I'm not directly comparing the two issues btw simply raising the issue that these fora are meant to be welcoming to a broad base of users and when it was felt that this was not the case the issue was directly actioned.

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't know how one could go about changing that RDM(on any forum), not unless the community itself changes. The only thing we can do is report posts where obvious sneering etc is obvious and stick vigorously to the attack the post not the poster rule. The handy thing about the site is if you have a particular opinion on a subject there's nearly always somewhere you can post and have some likeminded people chime in. No forum will ever be a one size fits all.

Ok I think this thread/poll illustrates my point well, I'd prefer to find something not from TLL really (cos as I guy I feel this is raising an issue with a forum I'm not particularly concerned about at all or should be) , but this as a bonus has a breakdown of users in it

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056744565

Now in this thread related to that great topic abortion and attendance of a pro-choice march( sorry ), there's a poll attached where the choices are
(A) YES!
(B) NO but I am pro choice
(C) NO due to being anti choice
(D) American Flags.

Now its quite clear what the correct answer is in the poll and its needlessly controversial/and or insulting to those with divergent views and I can't see the equivalent being tolerated on the opposite side (e.g a pro-life event being advertised with a poll with a who's dissenting option was pro-abortion).

A quick mod edit would have removed a lot of this impression of tacit approval of (a mod posts that they will be attending on the 7th post so this impression would be reinforced) and in fact this issue was raised on the 16th post (this not even raising the issue of of a thread being started to advertise a political/social/controversial event AFAIK event/advertising threads are handled differently in different fora and in fairness the thread was eventually closed after 13 pages having started to being simply bumped by the OP).

The poll is particularly important because some around 25% of users opted for a dissenting opinion even though by selecting that option they may have been forced to misrepresent their views or find the term offensive (can you imagine a poll in politics for example , this is a very significant minority (I'd guess that 25% is probably close to the female to male ratio of boards overall for example) and readinga
through the Feedback thread in that forum it appears that at least one user has since left feeling the forum is a cold place.

Now this isn't having a go at this forum in particular but I do feel it shows how a majority position in a forum that may be approved of by the moderation team, both openly in their position as users (which of course is acceptable) but also tacitly in terms of moderator action or inaction, serves to reduce the diversity of opinion as posters holding those views feeling they are not welcome (as raised in post 16 of the thread) and or isolated, forming a self perpetuating cycle where the minority (or least vocal) becomes smaller and smaller.

If its felt that this post is too of topic feel free to delete, though I am rather loath to post on tLL feedback


In relation to bullying in general on boards.ie, I just don;t think the set up is conductive to bullying of a highly focussed nature as long at the "bullied party" reports it and there is co-ordination of across different forums.

El Guapo!

Nodin wrote: »

.....you're rather exaggerating the tone and extent of it there.

And theres the fact that if somebody says something 'controversial' (eg "I kicked a dog") they'll be challenged on it by no small number of posters.

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

RoundyMooney

Over reaction on her part, and that's putting it mildly. If people are going to come on internet fora and make up or "exaggerate" stories, then that's their problem. People are not going to let that slide. Unlike the mods, I don't think anything was "overlooked" because no action was warranted.

Closing her account was a ridiculous, foot stomping fit of pique, and she's probably reregged already anyway.

Dean09 wrote: »

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

Madam_X

RDM that abortion poll made me giggle - it's so pointed. I'm pro choice but I dont like the idea of someone who is a moderate pro-lifer being torn to shreds just for having that view.

Same with the atheism forum - I'm an atheist, really dislike organised religion and find the hate-filled "christians" here comical. But if someone makes a reasonable point defending religion in the atheism forum they can expect to be shredded - including by mods and admins. It's not a discussion forum at all - it's a backslapping mutual appreciation society where reasonable dissent is not welcome.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

It wasn't "excessively mean" to me. I was expecting a 20 page clusterfuck - it had got to 7 by the time I viewed it last night, of which about two were given over to the incident in question.

The problem is that at the moment people are going round with a "bullying" hole, and they'll beat incidents into the right shape to fit it.

El Guapo!

While I do agree that closing her account may have been a knee-jerk overreaction, I still don't think it was really fair that people ganged up on her and called her dad names like that.
There's a rule on boards that you can't say insulting things about celebrities etc in case they see it. Yet when a group of posters mock a members father, nothing is done. It just doesn't seem right to me.
The girl was simply sharing a story from her youth and the high-horse brigade came rolling out and berated her and called her father names. Now I don't know about you, but that's not a very nice thing to do. If it was in real life, people wouldn't have said the things they did, but just because its the Internet, people think they can say what they like.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

While I do (..........)they like.

You think there should be a limit of two people allowed comment negatively per post or something?

Right. A man kicks a dog. No reason, he just does it because he's a bollix. No one can refer to the fact that (a) hes a bollix and (b) clearly some form of nut because its 'mean' and "not a very nice thing to do"? Ye might as well have them pull the plug out and shut the place down.

And with regards to that specific incident, if you think it wouldn't have got a similar reaction IRL, I'd say you were wrong.

K-9

While I'm not defending the abusive comments it was hardly a nice action to do and it was an exaggeration, maybe even a bit trollish.

We must think of the children effected!

El Guapo!

Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong about what happened. In my view it was a bit over the top, but hey, if its not deemed over the line then thats fair enough. Just thought I'd point it out.

Madam_X

K-9 wrote: »

While I'm not defending the abusive comments it was hardly a nice action to do and it was an exaggeration, maybe even a bit trollish.

We must think of the children effected!

Yeh she probably knew it would rile people.

Re: badmouthing famous people - should be fair game if they aren't pleasant people, that includes journalists. We all know Independent Newspapers is widely staffed by professional trolls. Leave out the comments on the female journos' looks though if she has the *audacity* to not be that hot.

username123

Dean09 wrote: »

Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong about what happened. In my view it was a bit over the top, but hey, if its not deemed over the line then thats fair enough. Just thought I'd point it out.

When I looked at that thread I assumed the poster had made that post deliberately to elicit a reaction. I was fairly surprised the person then got upset and closed their account.

What reaction did they think they were going to get to posting a story like that about their father - in After Hours? I think common sense has to prevail also.

El Guapo!

username123 wrote: »

When I looked at that thread I assumed the poster had made that post deliberately to elicit a reaction. I was fairly surprised the person then got upset and closed their account.

What reaction did they think they were going to get to posting a story like that about their father - in After Hours? I think common sense has to prevail also.

Yeah but the way the high horse brigade jumped on her was OTT. You'd swear she said her dad was Josef Fritzel.

HondaSami

Dean09 wrote: »

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

Do you know that's why she closed her account or you just guessing that's the reason?

I read it there and the replies would be what anyone posting what she posted would expect to get imo. I don't think its bullying. People close accounts for all sorts of reasons, mostly private ones.

The Optimistic Pessimist

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I see one problem with that TFK

Call me P

so far I've yet to see any user get admin attention that didn't already go through a back and forth with local mods/cmod first.

Well, that's just not true.

That's how it rolls 99% of the time. It's damned rare anyone would come to the attention of any of the admins without them being flagged by local mods first because of issues with them locally.

If they have "issues" with users locally, then they should be dealt with locally, at first at least. That's what infractions and bans are for. If and when neither of those two means of moderation are used and a member's first ban comes directly from Admin and is a permanent one, then questions need to be asked as to why that step was deemed necessary, especially as mods have the ability to issue permanent bans from the forum's they moderate themselves. I'm not saying that step is always taken just to circumvent the possibility of a user appealing their ban, but it does happen.

Admin PM's are usually only when other avenues have been exhausted with someone. I say usually just on the off chance someone comes up with an example where this wasn't the case. I'll be surprised if someone does mind you. For a start the local mods wouldn't be too happy about it. If an admin PM'd an otherwise bang on person in one of the forums I modded I know I wouldn't and I'd not be alone in that.

So, you'd be "surprised" if on the "off chance" someone came up with an example of a user being permanently banned from a forum on Boards by Admin, if and when all other avenues of local moderation had not been exhausted??

Gas

Wibbs, I was permanently banned by Admin from a forum when local moderation was not not "exhausted". A forum that YOU moderate in fact and not only was local moderation not exhausted, I had never received so much as an infraction on it, let alone be banned from it.

In fact, the only moderation I ever received on that forum in seven years of Boards posting was when I was accused of derailing a thread by asking what was deemed to be a "whataboutery" question (I hadn't as it goes - what I actually did was use "whataboutery" after at the end of a post in an effort to explain why I had posed some previous questions that I had) and rather than argue on-thread (good boy that I am) I PM'd the mod making my point and was told that if I still had an issue with that their moderation that I was to take it to the Help Desk, which is precisely what I did.

That thread was then ultimately locked by that very same mod who's moderation I was disputing,only now acting in their role as Admin (handy) and in their final post on the thread they made the following accusation:

I have found roughly 15 posts by you complaining about tLL on After Hours.

The above nonsense was obviously arrived at by the mod/admin searching my posts for dirt to throw at me in obvious attempt at retaliation for my daring to dispute their moderation. They were lazy though, as they obviously hadn't bother to read the actual content of those posts, as if they had, they would have seen that the vast majority of those posts were anything but complaints, nor even what could be considered to be even critical in tone.

Even if I had done what was suggested I did, AH mods would not let it happen, as any users that I ever seen try and use AH as a platform to knock and berate the forum in question (or any forum for that matter) were always very quickly moderated for it.

However, that flimsy accusation was later used as the main reason excuse in the Admin PM instructing me that I had been permanently banned from the forum, along also with the following laughable and equally untrue accusations:

1."Bans have obviously not had the desired effect on you..".
(I have never, ever had so much as an infraction on the forum and so there were no bans!).

2."Admin have seen roughly fifteen posts made by you in After Hours where you were complaining about the forum..".
(Wibbs repeated this nonsense accusation in Feedback a short time after it was first posted by a member of Admin and rather than go though those posts individually again here, showing how there was no "fifteen posts complaining about.." that forum, I'll just link to my reply to him back then, where I did just that: reply)

3. "You started numerous threads in Feedback complaining about the forum and it's moderation. We see this as campaigning against the moderators and it will not be tolerated".
(I NEVER started so much as a single thread in Feedback complaining about that forum and here is the proof of that.)

4. "You have constantly trolled the forum and being disruptive over the years".
(This is yet more nonsense as I have only ever posted in four threads on that forum in seven years. "Constant trolling" - puh-lease!).

4. "The regulars of the forum do not like you".

Now, this last reason excuse, while not true, is getting towards the REAL reason why I, a user that had no bans or infractions on a forum, was permanently banned from it. As said, I rarely posted there but any regulars of that forum, that I had contact with elsewhere on Boards, I got on very well with. Indeed, many regulars there were members of a private forum that I helped moderate and not once did I ever have any arguments with them and so the only users that Admin could have been referring to were four or five regulars of that forum (Three current mods, one ex-mod and one regular user) that often took issue with opinions that I had expressed elsewhere on Boards, strawmanning me on daily basis and so hence the following comments that came in reply to that post which was referred to as "derailing":

I have as much interest in discussion feminism with you as I would with Kevin Myers.

Another user replied:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Fair enough but I thought it was a valid enough question and was interested in the answer, but you obviously have your history

Nail on the head from the above user, to which they were met with the following reply:

I have read enough of his posts on the topic to know his position and opinion and so feel no need to hear them again or enguage him on them.

You see, this is the real reason that I was permanently banned from that forum and it's a problem not just on that forum, but on a a few forums on Boards and that is that quite often bans and moderation is driven and fueled by cronyistic cliques. It's no where near as bad as it used to be, obviously, but some forums / mods /admin are slower at shaken off old habits than others. Certain mods are just not very good at removing their own personal feelings when modding and some will even go as far as push and harass users off forums that they moderate, just for the very reason that they do not like them and/or their views.

They do it very subtly but do it they surely do. Makes no difference to them that those users may not be doing anything wrong, as they see the forum as their own little playground to do as they please. Admin bans are perfect for dealing with these users as they will have no means of appeal and so there is little or no chance that the mod/admin will ever get found out. Just exaggerate what a user has done, make an excuse for not carrying out the ban locally and the chances are that Admin will believe there to be no smoke without fire and issue the forum ban citing "timesink" and "wasting moderators time" and or a bunch of other worn out cliches, that not all members of Admin would bother going to the trouble of checking the validity of, in order to double check if the ban was justified or not.

who do you suggest admins the admins?.

I can think of a few members of Admin who would be up to the task and where users would be guaranteed a fair and unbiased review of any Admin bans that have been issued, but it doesn't really matter who does it tbh, as any kind of granting of an appeal process for such bans would be better than none. Just the very fact that a member of Admin would know that when they issue a forum ban on a user, down the line they might just have to justify it, should be more than enough incentive for them to make damn sure there isn't an element of a personal grudge and / or dislike of a user and their opinions at the heart of the ban. Moderators have to qualify their forum bans and Admin should be no different, unless of course there is very good reason for not doing so like PM abuse, Spamming etc etc, but if it is just for on-forum posting and such (like it was with myself) then no way should a member of admin be able to issue such a ban and have it immune from being disputed.

The current situation is ludicrous because even sitebanned users get to appeal their bans in the Prison forum, but yet if admin just ban you from one forum, there is no means of appeal. Come on, how can anyone see fairness in a system with a gaping hole in it like that. All that's needed to remedy this, is to allow admin bans to be appealed in he DRF. If someone has done something awful, they will be sitebanned sure and end up the prison forum, so what is the harm? It will give some transparency in an area where currently there is none and any improvement over the current situation would be better than the current cul de sac users find themselves in whenever they get a forum ban by admin. I'm sitebanned, so I'm not suggesting this so that I can appeal the permaban that was issued to me, I'm suggesting it because I know how it feels to receive such a ban, to know it was not justified and yet have no avenue open to me where I could appeal it.

Other admins will stick their oar in if one of them goes OTT. Mods will kick up if one of them goes OTT. Admins have the beady eye on them from all sides, way more than mods do. Outside of that lot? The folks in the Boards office? Sure if it ever did get to that stage I'm sure that would happen but like I said I've yet to see anything like that.

How would they even know. It's clear from my case that the Admin that stepped up to the plate, were just repeating accusations that they had been told (or read in a reported post thread perhaps?) and just presumed all must be accurate. I say this as a quick use of the search function and modutils would surely have shown them that all accusations which were made and were ultimately later used to justify the permanent ban, were false. That's not an opinion, that's indisputable fact.

BTW if you think I'm on a defend the admins kick to toe the party line, I'd suggest asking others more longstanding of my history on this site.

There was a time when you would not have stood back and let a user, that had not had so much as an infraction, get permanently banned on a forum that you moderated Wibbs. There was also a time when you would not have thanked posts that personally attacked users, suggesting they have mental health issues and needed to seek professional help (not that you were the only name I was surprised thanked that post) Being blackballed (for what was perceived by others, to be you) airing Boards's dirty laundry, has made you weary of just who and what you risk sticking your head above the parapet for and I understand that, you just want to move on and prove that that you can be a team player again but the Wibbs of old would not have walked on someone in order to achieve that. I hope you get that re-rack man. You sure seem to want it bad enough.

Admin and mods pontificate about bullying and I'm sure it's genuine for the large majority of them (I really do) but it rings quite hollow for others. I have been labelled as being an insane, sad, mentally ill, misogynistic psycho, obsessed with women and one that should seek professional help. Not all in the one post mind, but all made by the same member of Admin. Scientologist whistle-blowers get a better send off than that. What were my sins again, that made that person feel justified in such a nasty personal attack? Oh I know, I suggested sexism was not a one way street in AH and boycotted, what I felt was an unjust thread ban. Hmm, maybe she should consider changing her avatar to something more apt.

You would think that closing my account after they refused to let me dispute the forum permaban would be enough for them and they would cease their bullying, but no, they were still posting their personal attacks. Here's just one example:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is this discussion about AH or are we back to the frankly unhealthy obsession some had with a certain other forum?

32 posts in seven years Ickle and never started so much as one Feedback thread in relation to it.

That qualifies as an "unhealthy obsession" ??

I think the real obsession, is the one certain ladies (and their buddies) had with one OutlawPete

tl;dr

There is no tl;dr version, I lied but apologies for the wall of text, as you see I don't get to say much on Boards as myself these days as while posting with all my many other accounts I have to watch I don't just blurt out that Springsteen is God or something and just give the game away. I will endeavor to keep all future correspondence to a minimum, somehow.

My Feedback posts tend to get deleted very fast and so I have decided to try and make sure each one gets around 120 minutes of prime time exposure, so that the lovely members of Boards don't miss out. If they get removed before that time, then I'll just use another account (one I don't want uncovering that is) to repost them, deducting whatever minutes that the post was up for before being removed of course. You see, there is one thing I am indeed obsessed with and that is boycotting this mean awfully mean spirited siteban, that I have so generously been given. Merry Christmas, Pete

Insect Overlord

Ah Pete, you used to be cool. This obsession of yours is getting too weird. Find a new hobby, dude.

El Guapo!

It really is an obsession at this stage.
Just let it go and move on man!

goat2

i would not report if some person give me a bit of grief, but i leave the poster know that i am not happy with personal attacks,
and hope for the best,
i think a warning is a good thing, and if they dont take the moderator seriously and just ignore the warning, a ban for a few days.

Wibbs

Honestly? FFS Pete give it a bloody rest. You went from "he seems well sound" to "WTF?" in remarkably, nay scarily short order. Your continued rants(and this coming from me is hardly a good indication) are getting beyond weird at this stage. As for not being treated "locally", you became an unreal and disruptive and obsessive timesink(tm) to the community again in pretty short order. To the point where other avenues were exhausted(and yes they were) and someone from the boards office had to say enough was enough. That's rare. Its beyond rare, you're the only example of the breed I can think of.

That plus your continued rantings on the subject are plain for all to see. Once since June? How many times has one of your rereg accounts been banned at this stage? I can number 5 in what passes for my memory. No doubt another persona will be along shortly after this one is banned. At this stage you're like death and bloody taxes. This is hardly healthy. For you BTW.

OK let's say we're wrong. Shít I'm wrong all the bloody time. So? Is according to you is a small group of online wrong gobshítes worth this level of focus? Hardly, if you truly believe what you're saying. In which case let it go for God's sake man and move on, chillax, do whatever makes you happy, but just let it bloody go. And whoever she was let her go too.

Like I said "well sound" was your previous description. I'm not so blinkered to think that's not the most of you(and don't), but let the small obsessive bit go. Like I said for you.