Mods posting in threads

Spook_ie

Enjoying a fairly heated debate about road tax and if it exists in principle if not in fact when a moderator who has engaged in that discussion decides to warn me about trolling and effectively censors any further input to the thread, one which I believe he was losing the debate on

Is it not possible for some arrangement to be made where if a mod has engaged in a discussion that the moderation of that particular thread is handed over to someone who hasn't expressed an interest rather than have what seems to be censorship

Ref: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057012706

and

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85976225&postcount=280

Also considering that a warning is given in the above post about trolling, immediately followed by a comment referencing the very same discussion (The discussion referenced being part of the proof or otherwise of a road tax ) having a somewhat underhand feeling

kaimera

*motor tax.

Mods 'should' be impartial when it comes to forums they mod and discussions that they are involved in.

Are they always? Prolly not but if it's not a common occurrence then meh, get over it imo.

Spook_ie

kaimera wrote: »

*motor tax.

Mods 'should' be impartial when it comes to forums they mod and discussions that they are involved in.

Are they always? Prolly not but if it's not a common occurrence then meh, get over it imo.

Feels like an often enough occurence recently, even more so when it's always the same mod

EDIT Motor tax is part of road tax in that it all goes into a central exchequer

kaimera

Spook_ie wrote: »

Feels like an often enough occurence recently, even more so when it's always the same mod

EDIT Motor tax is part of road tax in that it all goes into a central exchequer

I wasn't belittling your concern; when some mods are more visible than others it can appear somewhat biased or whatever but mods can engage in threads like anyone else.

and no, there is no road tax, else bicycles would be taxed Motor tax. motortax.ie. (altho the vrt.ie site calls it road tax. oh dear) Just to save you from hearing it a thousand times here when others reply

Amirani

I don't see the problem? The mod in question gave a warning to stop using the term "road tax" as it was being used in an incorrect and trollish manner. Yet you continued to use it?

No reason why mods shouldn't post in threads. Once their moderation activity remains impartial, there's no problem with it.

Beasty

I will try and avoid modding a thread I am very actively involved in and will usually report posts and ask other forum mods to have a look. Sometimes this may not be practicable though - maybe the other mods are simply not online or could also be involved in the thread (and indeed some forums only have single mods). I'll also deal with minor stuff that has little impact on the underlying discussion.

In this case the mod appears to have made numerous "contributions" to the thread and perhaps should have asked someone else to have a look. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the mods decision in this case - I have simply not read through the thread.

One further suggestion I would make is for mods not to mix mod messages and contributions to a thread in a single post. I know that in this case the mod used bold to differentiate the two, but mixing the message like that can actually detract from the mod message/instruction (and could inadvertently result in someone appearing to challenge a mod instruction particularly if the whole post is quoted when responding to the "non-mod" part)

Steve

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is it not possible for some arrangement to be made where if a mod has engaged in a discussion that the moderation of that particular thread is handed over to someone who hasn't expressed an interest rather than have what seems to be censorship

To answer your question honestly, this is already a suggested code of practice and is the advice given to mods any time they ask (as already pointed out by Beasty there) but it's not mandatory and boils down to applying common sense to the situation in question.

Spook_ie

kaimera wrote: »

I wasn't belittling your concern; when some mods are more visible than others it can appear somewhat biased or whatever but mods can engage in threads like anyone else.

and no, there is no road tax, else bicycles would be taxed Motor tax. motortax.ie. (altho the vrt.ie site calls it road tax. oh dear) Just to save you from hearing it a thousand times here when others reply

I hear it all the time, however, the crux of the argument is if someone pays more into the exchequer through fuel duties/motor tax, vrt etc then by default they must be paying more towards the roads, a de facto road tax system, under which guise then cyclists do indeed pay road tax via VAT but just not as much.

The major problem is that the mod is insisting I don't use the term road tax when it is, if I called it a footpath tax or a hospital tax ( which it also is because they are funded from central exchequer ) I doubt he'd be objecting

Beasty

Spook_ie wrote: »

The major problem is that the mod is insisting I don't use the term road tax when it is, if I called it a footpath tax or a hospital tax ( which it also is because they are funded from central exchequer ) I doubt he'd be objecting

If you came into the cycling forum and insisted on using that term it would be considered out and out trolling and your posts would be actioned if you ignored mod warnings on the matter

monument

Somehow the discussion continues on the thread without the misuse of the name of an historic tax that's no longer paid by anybody.

The warning was given after the user had already been warned for troll-like posts such as this one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85967042&postcount=237

Note that both 'sides' of the debate have been warned and carded my myself.

If anything I have done a lot of light-touch modding and allowed comments like this one...

Spook_ie wrote: »

Same old tosh recycled forever by the cycling community...

...to go unchallenged besides a general warning to all posters.

Or the classic trolling of claiming cars can't have an average occupancy rate of 1.25 people (or whatever) because the poster says that's not a "real world" thing to have a percentage of a person.

The troll has been fed too well.

Steve wrote: »

To answer your question honestly, this is already a suggested code of practice and is the advice given to mods any time they ask (as already pointed out by Beasty there) but it's not mandatory and boils down to applying common sense to the situation in question.

I was told before to just put the mod voice in bold and at the start of posts, but I sometimes do keep the mod voice in separate posts before or after my normal posts -- will try to do so as standard from now on.

Cookie_Monster

The Leeway you have been given Spook_ie to post the same old rhetoric again and again and again astounds me. I really don't think you should be complaining, but be grateful you're staunch, over the top and unbacked-up irrational hatred of cyclists posting is continually allowed over so many forums, especially as whenever you are called out on it you descend in the the same nonsense over and over.

monument

Re reporting posts -- I don't think I could live with making Victor, a CMOD or an admin read the thread... I don't think I should be even inflicting the thread on myself!

LoLth

Mods usually become mods of a forum because of their interest in the topic and their contributions to the forum (and behaviour) over time.

if a mod has an opinion on a topic, they should be allowed post it.

The only requirement is, when it comes to modding, they should be impartial. They can't ban someone for disagreeing with them but they can ban someone for the *way* they disagree with anyone.

To ask mods not to post on a subject or topic they have an interest in just because they are mods would be hugely unfair imho, both to the mod - who is in effect being punished for giving up their time and to the forum which would lose a good contributor.

In general, a mod will avoid moderating a thread they are participating in. Its not a rule, its a safeguard and a courtesy to the posters. They may feel they are too involved to make a rational judgement. However, sometimes, the action to be taken is obvious and straightforward and if the mod happens to see it first, he (or she) should feel free to deal with it appropriately.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The Leeway you have been given Spook_ie to post the same old rhetoric again and again and again astounds me. I really don't think you should be complaining, but be grateful you're staunch, over the top and unbacked-up irrational hatred of cyclists posting is continually allowed over so many forums, especially as whenever you are called out on it you descend in the the same nonsense over and over.

This irrational hatred of cyclists is in which posts? I'm pretty sure if I'd been posting irrational hatred I'd have a darn sight more infactions than I have

Overheal

I'm not tuned in to this tax issue you're talking about but I assume the phrase "road tax" has about as much sentiment in it as terms like "Pro-Death" and "Anti-Choice", both of which I'd personally find to be poorly veiled attempts at trolling/flamebaiting

Amirani

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not tuned in to this tax issue you're talking about but I assume the phrase "road tax" has about as much sentiment in it as terms like "Pro-Death" and "Anti-Choice", both of which I'd personally find to be poorly veiled attempts at trolling/flamebaiting

Yeah, I think that's probably a fair comparison.

SeanW

NiallSparky wrote: »

Yeah, I think that's probably a fair comparison.

How? I seriously don't get why anyone would have a balanced, logical reason for constantly moaning about the use of what is basically an interchangeable, colloquial term. Which is what it would be, even if it were not true that motorists cannot use taxable roads without paying the appropriate tax on that road usage. Ergo, road tax is appropriate from the POV of a motorist, it is not misleading in any way.

Beasty wrote:

If you came into the cycling forum and insisted on using that term it would be considered out and out trolling and your posts would be actioned if you ignored mod warnings on the matter

You're absolutely right - it would be no different to walking up to some Wahabbist Islamic clerics and showing them the picture of Mohammed with the bomb in the turban - and for the same reasons - hardline fundamentalist ideology.

The evidence clearly indicates that the complaining about "road tax" is based on a desire to push a specific agenda, either cyclist or environmental hardline or both, and to police the language with a perverse form of political correctness.

The reason for all the moaning from cyclists - and only from cyclists - about the term "road tax" is explained very well on their own forum.

Consider this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056834608

Iwannahurl wrote:

However, I am also of the view that a cultural myth persists with regard to "road tax" and that it leads some motorists to believe that they have purchased higher status and superior rights on the public highway. It is just one small aspect of our Car is King culture, but deserves to be addressed anyway.

Ads using the term "road tax" perpetuate the myth

The response from the rest of the crew?

enas wrote: »

As others said, you're preaching to the converted here.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

As already pointed out, the terms are interchangeable for many people. Even I used to be like that ... until I started reading Boards . Now I vigourously police my language, never allowing THAT phrase to escape my lips.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well when you repeatedly scream at people correcting them when they say road tax, occasionally beating it into them, they may finally get it...

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's more to the "road tax" fantasy than the belief that it is something to be paid in order to be allowed use the roads.

...

In my opinion, the "road tax" fallacy is loaded with notions of superiority, entitlement and expectations of payback and special indulgences. It suggests that yet another two-tier system exists, as if we didn't have enough of those already.

How do you influence culture? By giving cultural signals. Commercial interests such as the ASAI should not be enabling the propagation of such nonsense, and statutory bodies such as Revenue should not be giving it formal status by referring to it in its official documentation.

Same goes for Boards: automatic one-week ban for using the term "road tax" when Motor Tax should be used instead!

I know that monument is an avid cyclist himself and I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is becoming harder and harder.

BTW not long ago I didn't care whether it was called motor tax, car tax or road tax but thanks to these fine individuals, I'm going to be pushing the term "ROAD TAX" from now on, simply because of the fact that there are these hardliners trying to erase it for political reasons.

Amirani

SeanW wrote: »

BTW not long ago I didn't care whether it was called motor tax, car tax or road tax but thanks to these fine individuals, I'm going to be pushing the term "ROAD TAX" from now on, simply because of the fact that there are these hardliners trying to erase it for political reasons.

Thus you'll be deliberately trolling and are admitting as much?

Insect Overlord

SeanW wrote: »

BTW not long ago I didn't care whether it was called motor tax, car tax or road tax but thanks to these fine individuals, I'm going to be pushing the term "ROAD TAX" from now on, simply because of the fact that there are these hardliners trying to erase it for political reasons.

Aren't you the hero...

AltAccount

SeanW wrote: »

The reason for all the moaning from cyclists - and only from cyclists - about the term "road tax" is explained very well on their own forum.

Start an "Is it Road Tax or Motor Tax?" thread i the Motors forum ad let me know how you get on.

SeanW

NiallSparky wrote: »

Thus you'll be deliberately trolling and are admitting as much?

How is it trolling? It's a colloquial term that is from a motorist POV quite accruate - everyone understands it.

Like saying you had too much alcohol and got "wasted" or that an attracive woman is "hot" or a pan-fried breakfast mean is a "fry up." No difference. Not misleading. Only "inappropriate" because some hardliners decided to take offense as part of a cultural war to police language.

BTW we've heard from one of the worst anti-motorist posters on boards on te topic recently:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

More quotes on this mythical subject of "road tax" to add to my collection. It's a popular meme that just will not go away:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83114055&postcount=52
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83128964&postcount=59

P. Breathnach

SeanW wrote: »

How is it trolling? ...

I don't know if you really need an explanation, because it looks to me as if you already know the answer to your question. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you are choosing a particular phrase because you have learned that its use gets up people's noses. That's trolling.

I don't use the phrase road tax simply because it is inaccurate. It doesn't bother me greatly if others use the phrase casually. I think that those who get up on their high horses when it is used are following a silly and petty agenda. But if people are being silly about something, and you intentionally use the phrase about which they are being silly, then you are as bad as they are.

Beasty

Likewise the term does not bother me personally, but it winds a lot of people up because it suggests to them a sense of entitlement in those who insist on using the term - those who harp on about "road tax" tend to believe paying this tax gives them some enhanced rights to use the roads, whereas the correct term "motor tax" makes it clear that you are paying a tax for the privilege of driving a motor vehicle

biko

I don't see an issue with it as long as normal comments and modding comments are separated, for instance using bold.

For instance if I was a mod in this forum my post would be

biko wrote:

I don't see an issue with it as long as normal comments and modding comments are separated, for instance using bold.

The topic of this thread is "Mods posting in threads" not whether it should be called "road tax" or "motor tax".

The regular font is for the discussion and the bold "mod font" is to make everyone aware they're dragging the thread off-topic.



(note that I am not a mod in this forum so feel free to say whatever you like until a local mod says different)

Spook_ie

biko wrote: »

I don't see an issue with it as long as normal comments and modding comments are separated, for instance using bold.

For instance if I was a mod in this forum my post would be

The regular font is for the discussion and the bold "mod font" is to make everyone aware they're dragging the thread off-topic.



(note that I am not a mod in this forum so feel free to say whatever you like until a local mod says different)

However a lot of posters will use bold to emphasise a section of text or of a quote, thus averting the charge of being out of context, I've even been told off by mods that bold is for moderation, if so then remove the bold button from general use

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

Likewise the term does not bother me personally, but it winds a lot of people up because it suggests to them a sense of entitlement in those who insist on using the term - those who harp on about "road tax" tend to believe paying this tax gives them some enhanced rights to use the roads, whereas the correct term "motor tax" makes it clear that you are paying a tax for the privilege of driving a motor vehicle

But the problem is,

If you pay taxes for using your vehicle on a road, which motorists do, then they pay road taxes, if you don't like the use of accurate language then perhaps it's yourselves that are in the wrong.

Beasty

Spook_ie wrote: »

But the problem is,

If you pay taxes for using your vehicle on a road, which motorists do, then they pay road taxes, if you don't like the use of accurate language then perhaps it's yourselves that are in the wrong.

I am not going to debate the term here - that's what the thread in C&T does.

I will re-iterate though that if a poster decides to come into the Cycling Forum determined to impose that term when they know damn well (either from seeing posts/threads like this, or perhaps via an in-thread warning if they are not familiar with the aggro it may cause) it will wind the regulars up, that poster can expect to be sanctioned for trolling and/or ignoring a mod instruction

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

I am not going to debate the term here - that's what the thread in C&T does.

I will re-iterate though that if a poster decides to come into the Cycling Forum determined to impose that term when they know damn well (either from seeing posts/threads like this, or perhaps via an in-thread warning if they are not familiar with the aggro it may cause) it will wind the regulars up, that poster can expect to be sanctioned for trolling and/or ignoring a mod instruction

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057015776

So this one is allowable then?

Beasty

Spook_ie wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057015776

So this one is allowable then?

If it gets trolled like the one in C&T did it will be closed

hullaballoo

Can anyone remember what the OP in this thread was about?

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

If it gets trolled like the one in C&T did it will be closed

Moving goalposts, Hmmm going to be difficult to score goals I think