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
Request For Feedback: Bullying
Options
Comments
-
-
Yeh she probably knew it would rile people.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!
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.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well I see one problem with that TFK
Call me Pso 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, Pete0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Quoted for clarity Seeing as you want to make your point and keep it up here. I have to say IMHO it should be left up so readers can draw their own conclusions. Let the chips fall and all that. Like I say MHO and others/YMMV.The Optimistic Pessimist wrote: »Call me P
Well, that's just not true.
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.
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:
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":
Another user replied:
Nail on the head from the above user, to which they were met with the following reply:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
PS I've no idea what a re-rack is and why I should want one. Though as I'm channeling Sid James I'm thinking enhanced silicone bewbs. Odd given I'm not a bewb man...
*EDIT* and PPS I'm gonna look back with the benefit of time passing to see if I personally was acting the twat. If I was I'll mae culpa if needs be.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Insect Overlord wrote: »Ah Pete, you used to be cool. This obsession of yours is getting too weird. Find a new hobby, dude.
Isn't it funny how those gong to the trouble of lying and labeling users as having mental problems are never told to get a new hobby, or told that what they are doing is weird, just those that dare defend themselves after being subject to such crap I guess.
Maybe if it was you that was treated like I have been, you would think differently and I can assure you, if you were, I would not be on here dismissing your efforts at attempting to do so. Read my post and you will see that I am looking for a loophole to be closed that could affect other users of Boards, it's hardly going to benefit me when I am sitebanned.
I have plenty of hobbies man - one post on the topic since June does not really take too long you know.I did offer to help back in June and got an abusive and frankly bullying pm for my effort pete.
You did in your arse. You accused me of the following:Pete was on a crusade against the Ladies Lounge very existence
I asked you to provide one link to back up the above accusation and you couldn't. The only criticism I have of TLL (or ever had for that matter) was that of what I considered to be overzealous moderation when it came to the moderation of some men. For the simple reason that I was a victim of it when I was accused of derailing a thread. I was never on a "crusade" against the forum's "very existence" which is why you could not provide even one link to back up your claim when it was asked of you.Quoted for clarity Seeing as you want to make your point and keep it up here. I have to say IMHO it should be left up so readers can draw their own conclusions. Let the chips fall and all that. Like I say MHO and others/YMMV.
Good, well all I ever wanted was an opportunity to appeal that permaban and show that the reasons given for the warranting of it, were untrue.
I hope I have shown that, but it's hard to make some people see even the truth. None so blind as those that will not see and all that.PS I've no idea what a re-rack is and why I should want one. Though as I'm channeling Sid James I'm thinking enhanced silicone bewbs. Odd given I'm not a bewb man...
A rerack is what one is awarded in a game of pool, if deemed to be genuinely blackballedI'm gonna look back with the benefit of time passing to see if I personally was acting the twat. If I was I'll mae culpa if needs be.
Grand, well I would be most interested to know if after all this time you still feel that a user with no infractions and / or bans should have been permanbanned from the forum. Especially when the excuses given were because I started threads in FB when I hadn't and that I posted "fifteen posts" of complaint in AH, when I never did.As for not being treated "locally", you became an unreal and disruptive and obsessive timesink(tm) to the community again in pretty short order.
I posted 32 times (in just four threads) in seven years.
I posted in 1 Feedback thread regarding the forum in that time.
I only disputed 1 moderation decision in those years also.
"Disruptive and obsessive timesink"
Bollox quite frankly.To the point where other avenues were exhausted(and yes they were) and someone from the boards office had to say enough was enough.
I refer you to the above Wibbs, why would Boards office get involved with anything that I did?
I think you're confusing the time when the office got involved with users starting threads in FB to complain about TLL. I was permabanned by that stage, so to try and suggest that that had something to do with my being banned is quite frankly, more bollox.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.
Reregging after the fact has zero to with anything. How else can I post if I don't rereg?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.
Do you think I am sitting here stewing over what happened on Boards.ie for over a year, day in day out??
I seen this thread a few days ago and noticed your post saying that you would be "very surprised" if anyone could produce a user that was permabanned from a forum by Admin, when local mods had not exhausted their means of moderation and it made me laugh, as you I know and you know that that is precisely what happened to me, no matter how you try and suggest otherwise.
That is all, so eh chillax yourself.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement