Why is this person a mod?

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

Each person is charged with the responsibility to make Boards a place where people want to be, and where they are expected to meet a standard, a bar set high because it's set by example.

No - each mod is charged with modding a particular forum. Nothing else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

If people are not held accountable in some respect and held to a standard

Mods are held to the same standard as everyone else outside their forums. Inside them the standard is higher. Mods have been site-banned in the past for being a dick outside their modded forums. That accountable enough for you?

Czarcasm

K-9 wrote: »

There is a wider issue, nothing to do with the mod, but if Islam does allow domestic violence in certain circumstances (and I don't have a clue if it does or not), Boards shouldn't really be facilitating a discussion on that. I can't think of many forums that condoning DV would be allowed, so I don't see how any discussion even entertaining the thought that it is acceptable, can be allowed.

General site wide view and morals overtakes any freedom of religion belief argument, Boards secularism in a way!

Violent people co-opting religion to support their behaviour is a whole lot different from a religion that espouses violence though.

Religious people are not violent, but violent people can twist and contort religion to suit their beliefs and justify their behaviour, if that makes sense?

LoLth

on the issue of "the moderator is a user outside of the forum they moderate excuse being trotted out"...

so, you're saying that if someone is a moderator of Creative Writing for example, they have no right to express an opinion on another forum? Granted, in this case, the opinion being posted could be seen as controversial (I'm referring to the death penalty for dealing class A drugs and the Bloody Sunday comment) but in general, if a person is a moderator then they have no right to express an opinion someone may disagree with on any part of the site? Thats not true at all. Mods can post their opinions just like normal posters including in the forum they moderate.

What they cannot do, is break the rules of a forum. If they break the rules in a forum they DONT mod, they should be dealt with, just like any other poster would be dealt with and no leniency should be given because they are mods. On the contrary, a mod trolling other forums and creating work for the mods of that forum will most likely be dealt with more harshly because, being mods they should know better.

Mods breaking the rules in their own however are a different story and are dealt with a lot more severely than if it were a user as it is an abuse of their authority.

Now, whether or not you agree with Irishconvert's opinions on Drugs and Protests in Dublin, did either of those posts break any forum rule? (honest question, I havent looked up the charters for those forums) or were they just an opinion expressed and part of a discussion? Were they even off topic for the thread they were in?

@Fromthetrees: Nothing wrong with asking a question in feedback, I'm just wondering why you made a post based on three comments from a moderator spaced over three years and the most recent being from January? I'm sure I've posted something someone found offensive in my many years here before I was a cmod or admin, should I be demodded now for something from several years ago? Reading a thread from 2011 is unusual normally, taking offense to something posted then and raising an objecction two years later is unusual so I was wondering what prompted the action on your part.

As for how can you post properly on a forum, any forum ? Regardless of the personal views of the moderator I would suggest you post within the rules of the charter and of boards.ie in general and you'll be fine. Its not just the moderators that you engage in discussion.

Ken.

Maybe mods on their profile page should have a "mod of x forum since x date". If I made a post today (that got by the mods) saying "all travellers should be herded into the sea" and in a years time I got made a mod of any forum, should people be allowed go back to that post and say "Hey a mod said this bad stuff, de-mod him.

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

And that's exactly my point right there- it's a voluntary role, and if a Moderator feels they cannot meet the challenges presented by that role (to be an example of leadership to ordinary posters), then they are free to step down from that role, or as the case may be, choose to decline that role in the first place.

It goes all the way up the chain- Cmods should be an example to Moderators, Hosted Moderators and ordinary members, Admins should be an example to Cmods, Moderators, Hosted Moderators, and ordinary members.

Each person is charged with the responsibility to make Boards a place where people want to be, and where they are expected to meet a standard, a bar set high because it's set by example.

This is the true spirit of community, while at the same time projecting Boards corporate image in a positive light. Just look at what a minority of idiots have done to Facebook. If people are not held accountable in some respect and held to a standard- chaos ensues and the place goes to shìt, and I'm fairly sure the majority of members around here would prefer to see that didn't happen that Boards just went the same way as Facebook.

A mod will generally be viewed harsher than an ordinary user if they cause bother on a forum, it isn't appreciated that a mod who should know better, creates work for mods on another forum.

Overheal

ken thats kind of a bad example, since that kind of view isn't really supported or condoned on this website in any form: it's just bigotry. User or Mod alike would be infracted for that kind of post. Similarly I don't think I've ever seen a user upheld while saying such things in relation to Palestine or Israel, either, as the quote seems linked to underneath a thin veil

Orion

K-9 wrote: »

There is a wider issue, nothing to do with the mod, but if Islam does allow domestic violence in certain circumstances (and I don't have a clue if it does or not), Boards shouldn't really be facilitating a discussion on that. I can't think of many forums that condoning DV would be allowed, so I don't see how any discussion even entertaining the thought that it is acceptable, can be allowed.

General site wide view and morals overtakes any freedom of religion belief argument, Boards secularism in a way!

[edit]I re-read K-9's post and I think I picked it up wrong

Madam_X

LoLth wrote: »

in general, if a person is a moderator then they have no right to express an opinion someone may disagree with on any part of the site?

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

Ken.

Overheal wrote: »

ken thats kind of a bad example, since that kind of view isn't really supported or condoned on this website in any form: it's just bigotry. User or Mod alike would be infracted for that kind of post. Similarly I don't think I've ever seen a user upheld while saying such things in relation to Palestine or Israel, either, as the quote seems linked to underneath a thin veil

Ok bad example but the premise stands. Should a mod's record pre being a mod be allowed to be used against him or her.

Orion

Madam_X wrote: »

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

Probably because 2 of the 3 posts in the OP are in forums that he doesn't mod and the third was made in his modded forum well before he became a mod. For the former his moderatorship is irrelevant and in the latter it wasn't an issue at the time.

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

Religious people are not violent, but violent people can twist and contort religion to suit their beliefs and justify their behaviour, if that makes sense?

It does.

Orion wrote: »

[edit]I re-read K-9's post and I think I picked it up wrong

Thanks, I was just getting at the moral dilemma question. If domestic violence is considered acceptable in extreme cases in any religion, and Boards doesn't allow comments that support DV, well, I think Boards rights to view DV as abhorrent supercedes any religious discussion entertaining the notion.

Overheal

Madam_X wrote: »

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

It deserves request for elaboration in the discussion it's brought up in. Calling up that user's character and position as a mod in an unrelated forum seems like a complete detraction from that. From what I can see, Irishconvert was discussing the issue just fine within the thread. The problem comes from people who fly off the handle and can't sit to give the opinion it's due consideration. If it's so crazy, refute it, and be done with it. Circumventing the discussion to attack the user's character? The f*ck is that?

K-9

Madam_X wrote: »

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

How do you know cases like that aren't dealt with?

Czarcasm

Orion wrote: »

No - each mod is charged with modding a particular forum. Nothing else.

Then in my view at least, the job description needs to be expanded. Being a Moderator shouldn't be seen as an authoritarian and controlling role, which fosters a negative attitude towards Moderators, it should be seen as a leadership and aspirational role, which fosters a positive attitude towards Moderators.

Mods are held to the same standard as everyone else outside their forums. Inside them the standard is higher. Mods have been site-banned in the past for being a dick outside their modded forums. That accountable enough for you?

I don't know Orion if you get where I'm coming from. Accountability isn't just about being penalised, it's about being responsible. It's about leading by example and giving ordinary posters a level to aspire to, and if Moderators are more visible in other forums and are posting the same high standard they expect of their own forums, that makes the forum they're not a Moderator a better forum because ordinary posters will look up to Moderators as leaders by example and aspire to that same standard.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

Thanks, I was just getting at the moral dilemma question. If domestic violence is considered acceptable in extreme cases in any religion, and Boards doesn't allow comments that support DV, well, I think Boards rights to view DV as abhorrent supercedes any religious discussion entertaining the notion.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532317_363071273798992_572664362_n.jpg

tl;dr - I think turning boards secular is far off the table.

Orion

K-9 wrote: »

Thanks, I was just getting at the moral dilemma question. If domestic violence is considered acceptable in extreme cases in any religion, and Boards doesn't allow comments that support DV, well, I think Boards rights to view DV as abhorrent supercedes any religious discussion entertaining the notion.

I got that - that's why I edited rather than deleted my post. There is a difference with someone discussing the reasons (religious or otherwise) for DV and someone actively promoting it though. The former is acceptable imo, the latter not.

Overheal

ken wrote: »

Ok bad example but the premise stands. Should a mod's record pre being a mod be allowed to be used against him or her.

Its used as a means to even consider them as mods. Mods aren't picked at random, they're hand picked by mods, cmods, and admins. Tell you the truth I even got a sneaky peek at a discussion that involved myself at one point, and yes my spotty past history was called into question by several. I don't see an issue with that.

I think the real issue would be if someone dragged up some irrelevant controversial opinion I express in 2008 to discredit my character in 2013. Not the same as dragging up some topical thing I said at the time: especially true of politics and 4 year election cycles (I especially love discrediting posters who claim to have never held X opinion in their life and get their post from a couple years back where they're telling me they were a devout believer in X. Poor dude got pissed right the hell off, but dammit if he didn't shove his entire foot in his mouth). In this case however, I just don't see what relevance any of this has on Irishconvert's ability to moderate a forum.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532317_363071273798992_572664362_n.jpg

tl;dr - I think turning boards secular is far off the table.

Well yes, with large and vibrant religious boards. The problem is the clash with general Boards site views.

Orion wrote: »

I got that - that's why I edited rather than deleted my post. There is a difference with someone discussing the reasons (religious or otherwise) for DV and someone actively promoting it though. The former is acceptable imo, the latter not.

That still isn't getting my point. A discussion about why DV occurs is perfectly fine, a discussion saying DV is acceptable in certain circumstances because my religion/political views says so, well that starts getting uncomfortable for me.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

Well yes, with large and vibrant religious boards. The problem is the clash with general Boards site views.

So the opinion of a majority should hold tyranny over the minority opinion? No thanks. How would we keep politics discussion lively without people who are willing to espouse the dissenting view? This is more of the same. It would be same as banning the handful of die hard creationists on here that - to put it politely, I strongly disagree with. And so do most other people from what I gather. At least on here. Even from a purely conceited point of view: one creationist in particular has generated thousands of page views and ad impressions, and he kinda deserves a medal for that. This place would be fierce boring if people weren't allowed to have clashing opinions.

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't know Orion if you get where I'm coming from. Accountability isn't just about being penalised, it's about being responsible. It's about leading by example and giving ordinary posters a level to aspire to, and if Moderators are more visible in other forums and are posting the same high standard they expect of their own forums, that makes the forum they're not a Moderator a better forum because ordinary posters will look up to Moderators as leaders by example and aspire to that same standard.

I do get where you're coming from - I just disagree

Mods are mods only in their own forum. Lolth was much more eloquent that I'm going to be at this hour.

Generally mods don't get infracted in forums - not because they're mods but because they became mods due to being valued posters and not being asshats in general. Some posters are fantastic posters in certain forums but total dicks in others. Those people generally never become mods.

I'm not saying I'm not a dick - some of my best friends would call me on that But I do have the right be be a dick on any forum outside the forums I mod and I also have the right to get banned from those forums if I do. I don't do that though. Not because I'm a mod but because I like rational discussion without the need to be a dick. And I think that's a reason I was offered a position as a mod in the first place.

I have one warning and one infraction in 10 years on this site (I can remember what one was for and it was deserved - can't remember the other). If I started racking them up in other forums I'd see my bold name and silver stars disappear pretty quickly. If I started acting like that in Parenting I'd lose them even quicker. That's accountability and responsibility.

Orion

K-9 wrote: »

That still isn't getting my point. A discussion about why DV occurs is perfectly fine, a discussion saying DV is acceptable in certain circumstances because my religion/political views says so, well that starts getting uncomfortable for me.

I thought it was. He never said he did - or would. But ok - he reserved the right to do so.

tbh I find it hard to believe I'm even half defending irishconvert in this as I have little time for most of what he believes but I do believe in his right to express his beliefs.

If any poster said he beat his wife - no matter what the reason - I'd be expecting boards to report it to the police. But if you read that post again he never implied that at all. He did say that it is within his rights as a Muslim to do so I will grant. But unless and until he actually puts that into practice it's an academic discussion and at that point the law of the land comes into it. Talking about assault is not illegal - doing it is.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

So the opinion of a majority should hold tyranny over the minority opinion? No thanks. How would we keep politics discussion lively without people who are willing to espouse the dissenting view? This is more of the same. It would be same as banning the handful of die hard creationists on here that - to put it politely, I strongly disagree with. And so do most other people from what I gather. At least on here. Even from a purely conceited point of view: one creationist in particular has generated thousands of page views and ad impressions, and he kinda deserves a medal for that. This place would be fierce boring if people weren't allowed to have clashing opinions.

If somebody states clearly sexist, sectarian, racist etc. views they'll get banned. Unless you are advocating total freedom of speech, you have a certain line on a point of view. Stating it is sometimes ok to beat your wife, I'd find that crossing a line, and I don't think saying your religion says it is ok in certain circumstances, supercedes Boards right to find that distasteful and ban those views. Misogynist views are misogynist views, religious freedom doesn't give a pass on that.

Boards have a right to censor certain opinions, sexist, homophobic, whatever. If people don't agree with that, they are kind of on the wrong site, seeing as it so heavily modded, there are other sites that cater for that.

Czarcasm

LoLth wrote: »

on the issue of "the moderator is a user outside of the forum they moderate excuse being trotted out"...

so, you're saying that if someone is a moderator of Creative Writing for example, they have no right to express an opinion on another forum?

Of course they have every right to express whatever opinion about whatever subject they want, just that they should be even more acutely aware than an ordinary poster as to how their post might be perceived.

Granted, in this case, the opinion being posted could be seen as controversial (I'm referring to the death penalty for dealing class A drugs and the Bloody Sunday comment) but in general, if a person is a moderator then they have no right to express an opinion someone may disagree with on any part of the site? Thats not true at all. Mods can post their opinions just like normal posters including in the forum they moderate.

Same answer as above, which is why I already said too that I think it's out of order for us to be focussing the discussion on a specific Moderator or their specific opinions, that's what the CMods are there for.

What they cannot do, is break the rules of a forum. If they break the rules in a forum they DONT mod, they should be dealt with, just like any other poster would be dealt with and no leniency should be given because they are mods. On the contrary, a mod trolling other forums and creating work for the mods of that forum will most likely be dealt with more harshly because, being mods they should know better.

That's exactly my point- If you're holding Moderators to a higher standard of disciplinary action outside their own forums, then it's hardly unreasonable to suggest they be held to that they be held to that same high standard when POSTING outside their own forums.

Now, whether or not you agree with Irishconvert's opinions on Drugs and Protests in Dublin, did either of those posts break any forum rule? (honest question, I havent looked up the charters for those forums) or were they just an opinion expressed and part of a discussion? Were they even off topic for the thread they were in?

Honestly Lolth I don't think the OP targeting a specific Moderator is fair, something tells me there's more going on when the OP is starting threads recently in Feedback about a Moderator of Islam based on three year old posts, and the same OP then started another recent and ongoing thread in AH about Islam and the possibility of terrorist attacks on Ireland.


It has my sceptic radar gone haywire anyway.

Orion

K-9 wrote: »

If somebody states clearly sexist, sectarian, racist etc. views they'll get banned.

Only if it's against the charter of the forum or general site rules. Saying women drivers are a hazard because of x,y,z would get me banned from TLL but not necessarily from Motoring. Saying christianity is a stain on the planet would get me banned from Christianity but get me promoted in A&A* and Islam* . If I complained about a taxi driver who ripped me off and moaned that he was Chinese I'd get away with that in R&R* but get banned from China. It's where you say it more than what you say. On topic is fine - trolling is trolling.



*not necessarily true

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

something tells me there's more going on when the OP is starting threads recently in Feedback about a Moderator of Islam based on three year old posts, and the same OP then started another recent and ongoing thread in AH about Islam and the possibility of terrorist attacks on Ireland.


It has my sceptic radar gone haywire anyway.

Islamophobia was obvious from the OP immediately - doesn't mean we're not all having a good discussion anyway - despite him

Tom Dunne

To me, this thread stinks of a witch hunt, no doubt biased by the fact that the moderator in question happens to moderate a forum of a religion that a lot of people view with contempt.

To go to the lengths of dragging up posts of a moderator from some time back, some of which are before the person in question was even a mod, reeks of bullying.

This is not the way we deal with things on Boards.ie. We deal with them at the time, using the proper processes and procedures.

I can't see any good coming of this thread.