Mods posting in threads

Beasty

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hmmm going to be difficult to score goals I think

About sums up your approach to posting in the Cycling Forum really, doesn't it?

Dades

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

You are comparing a question posed in a thread, to the use of a phrase intended to antagonise people. That your warning for trolling centered on the term "road tax" does not make every mention of it an offence. Context is key.

Spook_ie

Dades wrote: »

You are comparing a question posed in a thread, to the use of a phrase intended to antagonise people. That your warning for trolling centered on the term "road tax" does not make every mention of it an offence. Context is key.

But the only context of a road tax is a tax to be on the road, which is all I ever try to explain, seems to be beyond many peoples comprehension and all you ever get is a troll warning and censure

EDIT Doesn't matter what you name it, if it's a tax needed to use the road it's a defacto road tax

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

About sums up your approach to posting in the Cycling Forum really, doesn't it?

My aim in any discussion or debate, in cycling, or any other forum is to persuade people to my view, to provide information or to provoke thought,

In any thread those would be goals, your disparaging remarks do little to advance any concillatory thoughts, but rather further a belief in the them and us discussions that pervade threads involving different classes of road users or even moderators and posters

Insect Overlord

Spook_ie wrote: »

EDIT Doesn't matter what you name it, if it's a tax needed to use the road it's a defacto road tax

It's a tax needed to put a motorised vehicle on the road. For free you can walk, cycle, roller-blade, skate-board, jog, skip, skate, pogo-stick, free-run...

Spook_ie

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's a tax needed to put a motorised vehicle on the road. For free you can walk, cycle, roller-blade, skate-board, jog, skip, skate, pogo-stick, free-run...

So as stated it's a defacto road tax for a certain class/classes of road users, so therefore the term road tax isn't something that moderators ( in particular ) should be censoring

biko

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

I don't think it could be done because of the way vbulletin is (boards platform) but in all the time I've been modding there hasn't been any confusion where my mod bolding would be confused with a regular user's bolding.
Many mods use the bolding and most/all of the time it's clear that it's a mod instruction.

I don't avoid modding threads I'm active in, if a user raises concerns about bias I ask another mod or cmod to arbitrate. It really depends on the situation and the forum I'm working in but so far it hasn't often that I've been accused of bias (which happens to all mods, just part of the gig).

Overheal

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's a tax needed to put a motorised vehicle on the road. For free you can walk, cycle, roller-blade, skate-board, jog, skip, skate, pogo-stick, free-run...

Parkour?

AltAccount

Spook_ie wrote: »

But the only context of a road tax is a tax to be on the road, which is all I ever try to explain, seems to be beyond many peoples comprehension and all you ever get is a troll warning and censure

EDIT Doesn't matter what you name it, if it's a tax needed to use the road it's a defacto road tax

Why do you feel the need to refer to it as Road Tax?

Everyone knows what is referred to when you say Motor Tax or Road Tax, to a lot of people they're perfectly interchangeable terms, but when you say Road Tax it detracts from your argument and takes everything on a tangent when the more pedantic posters pick up on it.

Do you not feel that saying Motor Tax would enable you to make the exact same point without the negative effects and side discussions?

Spook_ie

AltAccount wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to refer to it as Road Tax?

Everyone knows what is referred to when you say Motor Tax or Road Tax, to a lot of people they're perfectly interchangeable terms, but when you say Road Tax it detracts from your argument and takes everything on a tangent when the more pedantic posters pick up on it.

Do you not feel that saying Motor Tax would enable you to make the exact same point without the negative effects and side discussions?

Not really because so many believe that motor tax isn't used to fund roads whereas the proceeds are paid entirely to the LGF to fund among other things the local road network.

Insect Overlord

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not really because so many believe that motor tax isn't used to fund roads whereas the proceeds are paid entirely to the LGF to fund among other things the local road network.

Did you just prove yourself wrong?

AltAccount

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not really because so many believe that motor tax isn't used to fund roads whereas the proceeds are paid entirely to the LGF to fund among other things the local road network.

Motor Tax is used to fund roads, as is income tax and multiple other taxes.

Motor Tax is also used to fund non-road related items.

You can't


Ah ha, you did it again!

There I was addressing the use of the words, distracting from the actual intent of my question...

SeanW

AltAccount wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to refer to it as Road Tax?

Actually, I used to call it "car tax" (inaccurate but in common parlance) and never cared whether it was called motor tax or car tax or road tax or anything else, it all refers to the same thing.

It's the agenda driven nonsense being peddled here that has changed my mind on the matter quite thoroughly. AFAIK it's environmental hardliners and 'cyclopaths' :rolleyes: that started this. And as far as I am concerned, anyone who accuses someone else of "trolling" for simply using the term "road tax" can go hang.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

In can understand this view, but there's a difference between using a common, mostly accurate colloquial term, and - for example - using a racial epithet against a person of the group in question. That one might have a problem with the latter is entirely understandable, this b.s. not so much.

The message that I've got from the cycling fraternity here is:

cyclists wrote:

We don't like this colloquial term "road tax" because it sends the wrong cultural signals and doesn't fit with out agenda and bla bla bla. So we're going to police people's language, "correct" everyone who ever dares use it, and if that doesn't get the message across, we're going to bitch and moan and accuse of people of trolling until WE GET OUR WAY and this term is erased from the English language.

There can only be one logical response to such ridiculous garbage. A two fingered response.

Spook_ie

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Did you just prove yourself wrong?

Don't think so, it's like cigarette tax, they don't actually tax the cigarettes they tax the tabacco but the two terms are effectively interchangable, unless you're pedantic, however, for some reason the same interchangability of motor tax/road tax is being denied under threat of sanctions.

The fact that the most vociferous of these people are cyclists would seem to be a common denominator


EDIT

AltAccounts response being typical

AltAccount wrote: »

Motor Tax is used to fund roads, as is income tax and multiple other taxes.

Motor Tax is also used to fund non-road related items.

You can't


Ah ha, you did it again!

There I was addressing the use of the words, distracting from the actual intent of my question...

AltAccount

SeanW wrote: »

There can only be one logical response to such ridiculous garbage. A two fingered response.

But deliberately posting to give people two fingers on principle, is basically trolling and against the rules, would you not agree?

SeanW

AltAccount wrote: »

But deliberately posting to give people two fingers on principle, is basically trolling and against the rules, would you not agree?

Nothing trollish about it, their "grievance" is entirely manufactured and they are pursuing an agenda that I find deeply questionable.

As such, I intend to question it in the strongest possible terms. And if those terms happen to be "pay some ****ing road tax" (which I would never normally do) then so be it.

Insect Overlord

Spook_ie wrote: »

The fact that the most vociferous of these people are cyclists would seem to be a common denominator

I trust you're aware that the majority of those cyclists also own and drive cars.

Spook_ie

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I trust you're aware that the majority of those cyclists also own and drive cars.

Yes I'm fully aware that some cyclists have cars, as I'm fully aware that they pay road taxes for the use of their cars on the road, that doesn't alter the fact that cyclists or cyclist/car owners are the ones who get so vociferous in their denial of the existence of road taxes

Steve

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I'm fully aware that some cyclists have cars, as I'm fully aware that they pay road taxes for the use of their cars on the road, that doesn't alter the fact that cyclists or cyclist/car owners are the ones who get so vociferous in their denial of the existence of road taxes

If I was a high court Judge and I ruled that there wasn't in fact anything called or resembling a "road tax" would you still argue.

As I just said in the other thread, if the whole premise of your argument is based on altering the name of the tax so that it implies that it is something that it isn't then your argument is doomed to fail.

Spook_ie

Example...

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

Nothing in there IMO to close a thread for, other than I reported a fellow mods post for being condescending and facetous, low and behold it seems it doesn't suit the cycling fraternity so lock it

Spook_ie

Steve wrote: »

If I was a high court Judge and I ruled that there wasn't in fact anything called or resembling a "road tax" would you still argue.

As I just said in the other thread, if the whole premise of your argument is based on altering the name of the tax so that it implies that it is something that it isn't then your argument is doomed to fail.

But you're not a high court judge and AFAIK none have.

Insect Overlord

Spook_ie wrote: »

Example...

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

Nothing in there IMO to close a thread for, other than I reported a fellow mods post for being condescending and facetous, low and behold it seems it doesn't suit the cycling fraternity so lock it

Are you actually hanging around the Cycling forum just looking for chances to push your opinion on other posters? Jesus...

Steve

Spook_ie wrote: »

But you're not a high court judge and AFAIK none have.

Purple monkey dishwasher.

k thanx bye.

Spook_ie

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Are you actually hanging around the Cycling forum just looking for chances to push your opinion on other posters? Jesus...

No specificly I'm replying to a thread about motortax being roadtax, no doubt that some original posts were designed to troll myself but whatever

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86008291&postcount=4
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86008706&postcount=8

Both posts reported but seems it's ok to troll sometimes, depending who you are


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86017820&postcount=43

Would also seem that if you're a fellow moderator you can get away with trolling as well

I have very little doubt that if I had posted similar I would have been carded


edit

Perhaps it's time to open up the title to include mods covering each others backs

Zaph

This thread is supposed to be about mods moderating threads they're posting on and are actively engaged in the discussion. One thread about the whole road / motor / car / whatever tax nonsense is more than enough thanks. Back on topic please or I'll have no option but to lock this one.

Spook_ie

Gladly but it's starting to look a little like a conspiracy theory to me, unhappilly conspiracy theories are extremely hard to prove.

Dades

Especially absurd ones.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Example...

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

Nothing in there IMO to close a thread for, other than I reported a fellow mods post for being condescending and facetous, low and behold it seems it doesn't suit the cycling fraternity so lock it

A cycling mod on here already indicated that things get shut down quicker over in cycling than they do in C&T.

As an normal poster waning to get my word in after somebody had the last reply -- I've disliked some thread locking once or twice before getting use to it, but that's the norm on there.

They take less messing about.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would also seem that if you're a fellow moderator you can get away with trolling as well

I have very little doubt that if I had posted similar I would have been carded

Perhaps it's time to open up the title to include mods covering each others backs

Or maybe it's because it's the norm in cycling to lock rather than card (while C&T goes more towards card rather than lock)? Or maybe it's because the thread was already free-falling and never going to recover?

Or maybe it counts that I'm usually a productive poster on the forum? Just like C&T's sub-forums (the bus and the rail & train), outsiders are treated differently. As the rail sub-forum charter says:

"If you are not here to positively discuss heritage type topics, or if your interest is to criticise the various aspects of rail travel/freight/operation (i.e. if you're not a Rail Fan), this is not the forum for you.
Your posts will be considered off-topic/trolling and you will be banned without warning."

Amirani

Spook_ie wrote: »

Gladly but it's starting to look a little like a conspiracy theory to me, unhappilly conspiracy theories are extremely hard to prove.

Start a thread on the Conspiracy Theories forum so. I somehow you'll be taken seriously though.

_Kaiser_

Just to add my own thoughts on this...

There's another thread in C&T going on at the moment about the proposal to reduce speed limits in town/cities to 30 km/h and as in the thread referred to by the OP, the same Moderator referenced has been posting his/her views on the subject.

My own position is that this is a ridiculous idea by a PC nanny-state mentality that only serves to absolve (primarily) pedestrians of any responsibility for their own actions or safety by "punishing" the private motorist instead - ref this post

The response from Monument is to link 3 news reports that he/she feels backs up the assertion that it's (always) the motorist that's at fault and who is ultimately responsible in this situation... even though the 3 reports in question show no evidence that "excessive speeding" was a factor:

- the first talks about an accident caused by driver inattention and roadworks
- the 2nd the result of someone allegedly driving erratically and then swerving to avoid a collision - however the Garda witness in question mentions that had the driver mounted the footpath as claimed there would have been significant damage to their own vehicle
- the 3rd about streets not being wide enough for HGVs

He/she then drags in an argument about "noise pollution" - which is even more removed from a discussion on the physical safety of pedestrians.


So, given this spurious and misleading "evidence" to backup their point, I replied that there was obviously no point in trying to debate the matter if that was the counterpoint offered, and basically reiterating my belief that this proposal is another example of PC nanny-state do-goodery that only seeks to absolve people of any personal responsibility or accountability for their actions and that the situation is far from the view expressed by some in that thread of roaming (Mad-Max) style motorists just waiting to run innocent (jay-walking) pedestrians down, or deafen them with the noise from their evil cars.

For effect, I included a YouTube link to the 1977 B-movie "The Car" in which such behaviour by a possessed "evil" vehicle is a core part of the premise (it's actually a decent b-movie with a young Ronny Cox before he became a household name a few years later. Futurama fans will also recognize The Car as the one Bender turns into when infected by the Were-Car virus! )

As I said, it is in fact ridiculous to suggest such a thing just as it is ridiculous to suggest that EVERY road user is not responsible for their own actions and has a duty of care to themselves and others - the tone of my response above was to highlight just how ridiculous both such extremes are.

However at this point Monument saw fit to delete the post and warn me for trolling.. even though it could be argued that his/her own response earlier was similarly "troll-like". In my opinion however (re-enforced by this thread), it's more likely to be a conflict of interest between his/her own views on the topic at hand and their Mod status in response to a viewpoint they disagreed with - especially as it relates to their own direct reply previously.

As such, while I have no issue with anyone contributing to a thread, I would fully support the idea of Mods not being allowed to moderate threads they post on, but this would only work if there was an independent 2nd opinion and I'm not sure other Mods of the same forum would be best positioned to do this (assuming these guys/girls probably chat among themselves, are perhaps friends, and for obvious reasons would seek to back each other up on the same forum - a united front as it were)

Personally I just think it's more bemusing than anything else and I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. However I can see why the C&T forum has the issues it does, and I would submit that it's not all the ordinary poster's doing if this is the approach taken by those "in charge"

(Incidentally, I did raise the above with Monument via PM and gave him/her the opportunity to respond first, but as the only reply was to comment that this thread is full of mods, an admin and a few posters agreeing with them (but he/she did not actually respond to the points I made however), I'll let him/her and anyone else post their thoughts here).