the moderation of the abortion ''you are wrong thread''

eireannBEAR

one sided debate a huge let down for boards with biased mods

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056738261
1. moderators are strongly pro-choice and post as such.

2. if you post a genuine view numerous posters attack you for it.

3. i and many others have been abused,ie i was called pigeon waste etc.

4. in response and after numerous insults i made one mistake by replying to a poster ''your silly'' and was giving a warning.

5.if the posts are very abusive the mods will delete,but when i asked the mods are these repeat offenders being issued infractions they refused to answer meaning no as a couple of them would of been banned by now if they behaved as such on any other thread but they continue to post.

6.most if not all pro-choice supporters are aggressively bullied with pointless baseless posts and/or accused of being sexist or religious nuts.

7.boards is an amazing site that relies on it mods, this the first thread i have seen like this, and i really hope this issue can be resolved in 99 out of 100 cases you would swear the mods were paid for their work on boards.ie the moderation of this service blows the competition away.

Tom Dunne

You do realise that nobody has any idea what thread you are talking about?

bcp

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056738261&page=613

Turtwig

eireannBEAR wrote: »

one sided debate a huge let down for boards with biased mods

1. moderators are strongly pro-choice and post as such.

2. if you post a genuine view numerous posters attack you for it.

3. i and many others have been abused,ie i was called pigeon waste etc.

4. in response and after numerous insults i made one mistake by replying to a poster ''your silly'' and was giving a warning.

5.if the posts are very abusive the mods will delete,but when i asked the mods are these repeat offenders being issued infractions they refused to answer meaning no as a couple of them would of been banned by now if they behaved as such on any other thread but they continue to post.

6.most if not all pro-choice supporters are aggressively bullied with pointless baseless posts and/or accused of being sexist or religious nuts.

7.boards is an amazing site that relies on it mods, this the first thread i have seen like this, and i really hope this issue can be resolved in 99 out of 100 cases you would swear the mods were paid for their work on boards.ie the moderation of this service blows the competition away.

1. Moderators are entitled to their opinions.

2. Nope all viewpoints are welcome. Posts that contravene the charter aren't.

3. Yes you have. You have also been abusive towards other posters.

4. One mistake? You called posters childish on numerous occasions.

5. You were trying to discuss moderation in thread. That's a no no it's just stifles discussion. But seeing as you asked. Posters were warned publicily and via PM. Abusive posts were, I hope, all removed or edited. You never reported any abusive posts.

6. Assuming this is a typo and you meant 'pro-life'. Nope they haven't.

7. We've been incredibly lenient with you. I'd suspect the majority of fora on boards would have banned you. At very least several of your posts would have been infracted. Leeway was given because of the sensitive and emotional nature of the topic at hand.

eireannBEAR

Jernal wrote: »

1. Moderators are entitled to their opinions.

2. Nope all viewpoints are welcome. Posts that contravene the charter aren't.

3. Yes you have. You have also been abusive towards other posters.

4. One mistake? You called posters childish on numerous occasions. A&A is one heck of a lenient forum.

5. You were trying to discuss moderation in thread. That's a no no it's just stifles discussion. But seeing as you asked. Posters were warned publicily and via PM. Abusive posts were, I hope, all removed or edited. You never reported any abusive posts.

6. Assuming this is a typo and you meant 'pro-life'. Nope they haven't.

7. We've been incredibly lenient with you. I'd suspect the majority of fora on boards would have banned you. At very least several of your posts would have been infracted. Leeway was given because of the sensitive and emotional nature of the topic at hand.

this is not true if the mods read through the posts they see this. where are these abusive posts??

bcp

eireannBEAR wrote: »

this is not true if the mods read through the posts they see this.

which parts?

eireannBEAR

bcp wrote: »

which parts?

you have 2 posts to your name why are you interested in this topic?

shruikan2553

I dont think it was your views such that was being attacked but instead you stating a controversial point and ignoring, taunting or brushing off any attempts to question you on it was the cause of any issues and not engaging in any debate unless it sided with your opinion.

eireannBEAR

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I dont think it was your views such that was being attacked but instead you stating a controversial point and ignoring, taunting or brushing off any attempts to question you on it was the cause of any issues and not engaging in any debate unless it sided with your opinion.

i will contact the numerous people attacked on this thread later,i would post the insults but i imaging they have been deleted. my opinions are not controversial they are the current laws of the state. i had 10 people repeatedly posting the same comments and questions even after i repeatedly answered them. of course i was not going to answer the same posters 3 times,if the mods read over this thread they will see how biased and attacking it is through out. they will also see how it spues pure hate. people dont post in to talk or debate they post to attack with thinly veiled insults.

Turtwig

eireannBEAR wrote: »

this is not true if the mods read through the posts they see this. where are these abusive posts??

See, this was a problem with your posts. You'd keep them to two sentences, contradict others but never actually explain why they are wrong. This would in return peeve posters who initially took the time to write their posts containing a bit of detail in reply to your posts.

From your reply all I can do is assume you disagree with it 100% or acknowledge that I don't yet understand your position and have no choice but to question you further.

Which of the numbers 1 to 7 that I replied to are you in disagreement with?

bcp

eireannBEAR wrote: »

you have 2 posts to your name why are you interested in this topic?

yup, one to link to the proper thread (you're still linking wrong one), I actually had to root through your posts to find it, hmph...thanks i get.

2- was a simple question so methinks you're just to "sensitive" for want of a better word. Walk away for awhile. That threads not gonna change anything.

I have absolutely no interest in the topic for reasons that I really shouldn't write down.

eireannBEAR

from page one of the thread people will see a banned poster called ''christmas'' being attacked for not supporting abortion on demand.

the accusations against her were insane. a poster that had close to 3000 posts. she couldnt of been to bad.

Corkfeen

Why didn't you report the abuse you received?

eireannBEAR wrote: »

from page one of the thread people will see a banned poster called ''christmas'' being attacked for not supporting abortion on demand.

the accusations against her were insane.

Glanced over those posts. By post number 65, both she and other posters were warned to tone things down...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80476529&postcount=65

eireannBEAR

Corkfeen wrote: »

Why didn't you report the abuse you received?

Glanced over those posts. By post number 65, both she and other posters were warned to tone things down...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80476529&postcount=65

yes but if an independen unbiased mods look over this they will see that the page mods added fuel to the fire and allowed 50 pages of insults shot at her before this.

all the have to do is look at page one of the thread.

Corkfeen

eireannBEAR wrote: »

yes but if an independen unbiased mods look over this they will see that the page mods added fuel to the fire and allowed 50 pages of insults shot at her before this.

all the have to do is look at page one of the thread.

Jernal, wasn't a mod at that point. There was only 65 posts before a warning was given. Robin posted once in non mod capacity and made a warning shortly after. Christmas did not help that situation with the rhetoric she used btw. Posts such as 'tell that to me again AFTER you get an abortion'.....

Went over all the posts that were made in relation to her on the first page. Most were questions and asking her to backup her viewpoint.

RDM_83 again

strobe wrote: »

You have the gall to talk about people needing 'an attitude of genuine maturity'? Face the music...? What horseshit, are you 12? So someone has sex with a condom and still contracts chlamydia... no doxycycline for them? What would they learn then sure? Best they face the music.

Ugghh... it's painful..

Never read that thread (there's enough ones on that issue on boards!) but if comments which include the stuff highlighted are still left on thread after the worst has been cleared out, its fairly clear that some level of abuse is tolerated (just saw that in a two second flick through to see what post 61 was)

eireannBEAR

dear god,how many people were banned by the mods on this thread??? it appears they were all pro-lifers fully fledged boards.ie members with a lot of posts!! they have been attacked and lost their account because of biased mods!!

Corkfeen

eireannBEAR wrote: »

dear god,how many people were banned by the mods on this thread??? it appears they were all pro-lifers fully fledged boards.ie members with a lot of posts!! they have been attacked and lost their account because of biased mods!!

Why not look over the posts of posters who were permabanned? They're free to appeal them but they generally have a large amount of infractions in their past and have failed to listen to moderators across the forums.

Turtwig

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Never read that thread (there's enough ones on that issue on boards!) but if comments which include the stuff highlighted are still left on thread after the worst has been cleared out, its fairly clear that some level of abuse is tolerated (just saw that in a two second flick through to see what post 61 was)

As far as I can tell nothing was edited or deleted until after post 65 by Rob. More specifically he issued a final warning at post 80.

Also, it's worth noting that Christmas, iirc is was a rereg of a well known trollster with a fetish for sodomy, had already been posting in a few threads inflaming other posters.

RDM_83 again

Jernal wrote: »

As far as I can tell nothing was edited or deleted until after post 65 by Rob. More specifically he issued a final warning at post 80.
.

Apologies I thought posts had been deleted before the mod warning too which is why i highlighted that one

eireannBEAR

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Apologies I thought posts had been deleted before the mod warning too which is why i highlighted that one

they have even posts by moderators have now been edited. its plain to see that this thread was a farce.

eireannBEAR

Jernal wrote: »

As far as I can tell nothing was edited or deleted until after post 65 by Rob. More specifically he issued a final warning at post 80.

Also, it's worth noting that Christmas, iirc is was a rereg of a well known trollster with a fetish for sodomy, had already been posting in a few threads inflaming other posters.

but most of the posts even posts from mods have been edited with snip or deleted in big red writhing??

page 16 of the thread,my computer wont let me paste.

Turtwig

eireannBEAR wrote: »

page 16 of the thread,my computer wont let me paste.

How many posts per pages are you showing?
It'd be easier if you just provided the post number.

Turtwig

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Apologies I thought posts had been deleted before the mod warning too which is why i highlighted that one

Nothing to apologise for.
Generally speaking we don't edit or delete every post. It's only when the thread starts descending into a higher frequency of posts like that do we a take a rough ready, edit and delete approach. Or if the post is incredibly bad.

Most of the time posters are either pm'd and asked as a courtesy to edit their post. Or the post is just soft deleted and user is pm'd why. Editing is usually reserved as a last resort.


There is also the very real human factor of humans being mods and making errors. Or not being able to read all posts. Which is why we rely on folks reporting posts. The downside to this of course is that a newbie might be unaware of the report post function. Meaning any abuse directed at him/her may go unreported. Whereas any abuse made by the newbie may get tonnes of reports. Hence, another reason why newbies are shown even more leniency than the regulars.

shruikan2553

From what I it is the second largest thread in the A&A forum and the largest thread that is discussion (largest has a lot of pictures) so a few comments are bound to fall through the cracks unless they are reported.

Seeing as the majority of the people on the forum would be more likely to be pro choice people than the rest of the website a pro life view would receive more scrutiny and should be prepared for this. Many of the pro life people have made comments about how abortion is bad and fewer have backed up their points. When counter arguements are made they are often ignored by the pro life side.

There are people who have gone ott but people feel strongly about aspects of this and when people say something such as rape victims shouldnt have an abortion it will lead to backlash unless a solid reasoning is paired with it. There are some people that arent exactly trying not to cause controversy

eireannBEAR

Jernal wrote: »

Nothing to apologise for.
Generally speaking we don't edit or delete every post. It's only when the thread starts descending into a higher frequency of posts like that do we a take a rough ready, edit and delete approach. Or if the post is incredibly bad.

Most of the time posters are either pm'd and asked as a courtesy to edit their post. Or the post is just soft deleted and user is pm'd why. Editing is usually reserved as a last resort.


There is also the very real human factor of humans being mods and making errors. Or not being able to read all posts. Which is why we rely on folks reporting posts. The downside to this of course is that a newbie might be unaware of the report post function. Meaning any abuse directed at him/her may go unreported. Whereas any abuse made by the newbie may get tonnes of reports. Hence, another reason why newbies are shown even more leniency than the regulars.

no in this case the mods set out to ban posters that didnt agree with them. its evident from the thread if one unbiased mod reads through this they will see that you been totally unfair and co-operated in online bullying this is a fact its plain to see. the mods of this thread are genuinely unfit to moderate it. i am aware that these are bold claims but its quite simply clear to see from page one.

Tom Dunne

Ok, here's the view from the sidelines.

eireannBEAR, I can't help but feel you are quite emotionally involved in what is a very contentious topic. I notice that since the conversation and alternative viewpoints are not going your way, you are resorting to commenting on moderator's actions.

No matter which way you spin this, it is back-seat modding.

So, could I respectfully request that you step away from the keyboard for a while, gather your thoughts and come back with a clear head?

Please do not put moderators (or Admins) in the position of having to start threatening people with bans. It just adds fuel to an already over-heated fire.

eireannBEAR

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Ok, here's the view from the sidelines.

eireannBEAR, I can't help but feel you are quite emotionally involved in what is a very contentious topic. I notice that since the conversation and alternative viewpoints are not going your way, you are resorting to commenting on moderator's actions.

No matter which way you spin this, it is back-seat modding.

So, could I respectfully request that you step away from the keyboard for a while, gather your thoughts and come back with a clear head?

Please do not put moderators (or Admins) in the position of having to start threatening people with bans. It just adds fuel to an already over-heated fire.

i think the thread should be closed if it cant be moded properly.

mods should not be supporting or allowing people to be abused.

eitherway i hope people with pro-life views are not treated the same way after this.

eireannBEAR

oh and btw i put the mod in that position because he deleted 3 abusive posts aimed at me in 5minutes but didnt take any other action,thats why the thread is out of control. one poster had 3 abusive posts aimed at me deleted yet hes still posting away. its insane.

Tom Dunne

eireannBEAR wrote: »

i think the thread should be closed if it cant be moded properly.

mods should not be supporting or allowing people to be abused.

eitherway i hope people with pro-life views are not treated the same way after this.

You are doing it again. The thread will be closed it the moderators deem it should be closed.

If you feel moderators are permitting the personal abuse of other members, then please report it and it will be dealt with via the normal channels.

Doctor Strange

You did not engage in debate on the thread. All you did was cherrypick posts, and often responded with irrelevant gibberish. I and other posters were rightly annoyed by your choosing to not engage in proper discourse in the spirit of boards.