No moderator?

Dan_Solo

There has been back seat modding, personal abuse and trolling at boards.ie > Soc > Emergency Services, which I have reported. I also requested a mail from the moderator asking that he at least tell me that my reports have been considered. I've had no response at all.
Does Emergency Services have a moderator?

Insect Overlord

It has 3 moderators and 2 CMods. You should probably wait more than just a few hours before demanding a personal response though, considering it was a rather nice Friday evening.

Dan_Solo

Well the first incident of back seat modding I reported was at noon today.
Must have all gone off early... (yeah, I know they have day jobs!)

Insect Overlord

A quick look at their profiles would have given you that info.

One of the mods hasn't posted on Boards in 2 weeks, another in 2 days, and the other was last on-line on Friday morning.

There should be a minimum of 24 hours (probably closer to 48 hours) after a report before you start complaining about it. In fairness.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

A quick look at their profiles would have given you that info.

One of the mods hasn't posted on Boards in 2 weeks, another in 2 days, and the other was last on-line on Friday morning.

There should be a minimum of 24 hours (probably closer to 48 hours) after a report before you start complaining about it. In fairness.

I wasn't complaining about the moderation. I was asking a question about it.

Insect Overlord

Fair enough.

LoLth

Hi Dan,

in response to this feedback thread I've taken quick look at your reported posts and , more importantly, the thread the posts were reported from to get a handle on the context.

As I suspected , your issue is not with a lack of moderation, its with a lack of moderation when it comes to an offense you perceive to have been committed against you.

Can I just ask, why do you think it is ok for you to jump into a thread and basically make no attempt to discuss the topic but instead just repeatedly soapbox your negative opinion of the emergency services all the while completely ignoring the points the other posters are making but it is not ok for someone to post that it is pointless discussing the topic with you or that they are no longer going to respond to your posts?

Given your attitude in that thread and the fact that from the start you went in with an attitude of starting a fight, I'm surprised you weren't flat out carded then banned by the mods. For trolling. because that's almost exactly what it reads like. You know the emergency services forum is going to be frequented by people with an interest or career in the emergency services and you make no attempt to engage, you just repeatedly slag off their ethics and capabilities and , when corrected on points of law on which you base an example to support your assertion, you ignore the response and go on to further derisive posts.

Then, you decide you are the one that has been insulted and start to claim that there is no moderation because the mods have not taken an action you want them to take in a timeframe you consider acceptable.

I've just gone back to re-read that thread before I hit the post button here because I am concerned that my opinion may be a bit harsh or maybe I'm just misreading the whole situation.

Nope. you were patronising, smug, argumentative and basically being a dick in that thread.

I'm going to ask the mods of the emergency services forum to read that thread and take whatever action they feel is necessary. I am also going to recommend that they practise zero tolerance when it comes to your posts in future with absolutely no discretion or leeway. You cannot behave like you did in that thread and expect the rules to protect you when other posters react badly.

Dan_Solo

I didn't realise that because a channel was frequented by certain professions I was required to agree with them. This rule was not made clear.
I decided I was the one insulted because I WAS insulted. Not my argument or anything, I was directly called a fool. And a troll, which is back seat modding whether you now decide to agree with that now or not. All of which is apparently OK "if you are provoked".
So, mods close ranks and see ya later. Got it.

Dan_Solo

LoLth wrote: »

As I suspected , your issue is not with a lack of moderation, its with a lack of moderation when it comes to an offense you perceive to have been committed against you.

Can I ask you how the word "perceive" managed to get into this post of yours?
Is this

A discussion? With Dan_Solo? It would be like discussing thermo-nuclear physics with a cat.

"perceived" personal abuse or just plain old fashioned abuse but you are refusing to admit it is? Could you please explain to me how this kind of line is a matter of perception.

Also, and just for example, do you not think that asking me to NAME, and insisting on it, people who have been jailed for not paying their TV license is argumentative?

Shield

For the record, I have now just come online and will commence investigating this issue now. I will edit this post with my opinion when I have read all the pertinent information.

EDIT #1 Dan_Solo has posted 55 times out of 135 posts on this thread, which accounts for just over 40% of the content of the thread. In order for me to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into this issue, it will take me a few hours, at the least. However, these are hours I am willing to put in, in the name of fairness, transparency and impartiality.

So far, I have spent 1 hour and 20 minutes reading down through the thread slowly, methodically, and without bias. I must now sign off temporarily, but I will return to this later on this afternoon, and hope to have a final opinion on this before midnight tonight.

LoLth

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I didn't realise that because a channel was frequented by certain professions I was required to agree with them. This rule was not made clear.

no one is saying you have to agree all the time but deliberately spoiling for a fight by posting contrary to the overall topic of the forum (for example posting "Pokémon is all childish crap" in the Pokémon forum) and then not discussing but going on to soapbox is pretty much the definition of trolling and being a dick.

I decided I was the one insulted because I WAS insulted. Not my argument or anything, I was directly called a fool. And a troll, which is back seat modding whether you now decide to agree with that now or not. All of which is apparently OK "if you are provoked".

and this is rules lawyering and using the rules to protect yourself form the reaction to your own decision to post like an argumentative, soapboxing dick. But I am willing to bet you didn't re-read your posts after my comment with any intention of seeing if there could possibly have been a grain of truth to my assertion. I think you are happy that they broke a rule therefore you "win". Congratulations. If only there were more posters on the interwebz like you. Boards.ie has very few zero tolerance rules because we do encourage context to be taken into account. Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis and were I mod, I would give each a posted warning / post edit and maybe a yellow card.

So, mods close ranks and see ya later. Got it.

aaaaand there it is. How were mods closing ranks? the emergency services mods have not given their opinion. I was giving my response to your feedback. Is it closing ranks just because I don't agree with you?

I notice you don't deny my assertion that you were smug, argumentative and being a dick or that you posted with the intention of argument and not discussion. Do I take it from this that you agree with my evaluation? Did you just admit to provoking posters? (bit like trolling that isn't it?)

please, continue the pedantic nitpicking sense of entitlement argument style, it really works well with me. (just for clarity, that bit isn't true at all but its in print so maybe you can quote it back to me later on in the thread to support some vaguely related point).

Dan_Solo

I would prefer not to deal with Lloth as he has admitted he had come to his conclusion before reading the thread in question and now he has directly insulted me by calling me a fool in this thread.

But anyway, asking why other posters are not considered argumentative is not equivalent to admitting I was argumentative. What we as posters are looking for is consistency. One man's argumentative trolling is the next man's witty and concise risposte.
You have not responded to my question as to why you used the word "perceive" to describe the abuse I received. Does this by your logic now mean that you agree it had nothing at all to do with perception and was just plain abuse?

Dan_Solo

Did all 8 of the people who thanked Lloth's post above really read the entire thread in question before giving their thanks? Any of it? The moderator there himself says it takes more than an hour to get through

Dades

If your responses to LoLth's replies are anything to go by then it wouldn't surprise anyone to discover what he says is true.

If you'd addressed or even acknowledged the accusations put to you regarding your own posts then it mightn't look like such a case of feedback biting you in the ass.

bumper234

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Did all 8 of the people who thanked Lloth's post above really read the entire thread in question before giving their thanks? Any of it? The moderator there himself says it takes more than an hour to get through

I did,

I have been following that thread and tbh your posts in there are the reason i stayed away from it.

Gordon

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Did all 8 of the people who thanked Lloth's post above really read the entire thread in question before giving their thanks? Any of it? The moderator there himself says it takes more than an hour to get through

Does someone have to read the whole of that thread in order to be allowed to thank Lolth's post?

Also, thanking a post has many meanings, some people could have specifically been thanking this line:

I'm going to ask the mods of the emergency services forum to read that thread and take whatever action they feel is necessary.

LoLth

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I would prefer not to deal with Lloth as he has admitted he had come to his conclusion before reading the thread in question and now he has directly insulted me by calling me a fool in this thread.

no, I said I went back and re-read the thread to be sure I was making an impartial decision and wasn't misreading the context. As for dealing with me, this isn't DRP, this is Feedback, which I moderate. Feel free to not read my posts but you do not get to pick and choose who can and can not respond to your posts.

But anyway, asking why other posters are not considered argumentative is not equivalent to admitting I was argumentative.

you never asked why other posters were not considered argumentative. If you had asked I would have happily told you, you posted early on in that thread and many of those that insulted you posted at length in response to your points. Of those you chose to ignore or dismiss over half of the points that displayed flaws in your own stance. Of course they were being argumentative, that's the tone you brought to the thread.

What we as posters are looking for is consistency. One man's argumentative trolling is the next man's witty and concise risposte.

your posting was not anyone's witty or concise riposte. it was soapboxing at best. Possibly deliberate provocation - ie: trolling.

You have not responded to my question as to why you used the word "perceive" to describe the abuse I received.

I'll answer that when you answer my questions. I notice from your other thread that this is a common theme for you. Ignore questions and demand answers to your own, later questions. Is this a learned argument style where putting the other participant on the defensive is seen as somehow a display of skill or knowledge? You are , in this thread and the emergency services thread combative not conversational. You want to post like that, fine but don't cry when other posters get angry or annoyed with you.

Does this by your logic now mean that you agree it had nothing at all to do with perception and was just plain abuse?

no, it means I believe you did receive abuse but while you believe that you are an innocent party in all of this wrongly set upon by ignorami who cannot appreciate your fine prose, I am of the opinion that you pretty much reaped what you sowed. You set the tone and I have no sympathy because others responded to it exactly as I would have expected.

ps. its LoLth, not Lloth, greyhawk not FR

Overheal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I would prefer not to deal with Lloth as he has admitted he had come to his conclusion before reading the thread in question and now he has directly insulted me by calling me a fool in this thread.

Oddly, that sounds like exactly what you did in that thread, calling other users Matlock derisively, accusing them of sleeping in late, stuffing their face with donuts, and never doing any actual enforcement.

Then when presented with pretty fair, legitimate scenarios, you just respond by complaining that it's not the same hypothetical scenario you were all ready to bitch and moan about. You got your knickers in a right twist when a user explained to you the simple and basic kinematics of highway pursuit - it really didnt matter what the perceived offense of the motorist was (driving with no seatbelt, using a phone, or in this case muddy license plate).

Not to delve too far into the topic itself, your position from the get-go is unfeasible, hence thats why you have such a shaky time defending it. 1 cop sees 3 motorists doing 90kph in an 80kph zone, they can at best pull one over, and as asked, what happens if during the traffic stop you see motorists pass by talking on their phones? Even if you want to go live off in a Judge Dredd fantasy, even Dredd couldn't perform 100% enforcement. Basically, you're argument is that cops are human and can't be everywhere at all times enforcing every letter of the law. Feel free to criticize which discretions they choose to make I suppose, but trying to vilify them for making discretions at all, is simply not practical. [That is hence why we talk about the Spirit and the Letter of the law - with spirit always being first; in the case of motoring laws, it's the spirit of safety. If the motorist is going a bit over the limit, safely, and there are other things to be done to protect and serve the population, then there's little point in making that pull].

My advice is that you are going to have a much easier time here taking a step back, honestly evaluating the feasibility of your position, and if you should discover on your own that you need to withdraw that position, do so cordially. It's a lot easier to respect someone who can admit being wrong. Your current course of action will doubtfully end well.

Dan_Solo

LoLth wrote: »

no, I said I went back and re-read the thread to be sure I was making an impartial decision and wasn't misreading the context. As for dealing with me, this isn't DRP, this is Feedback, which I moderate. Feel free to not read my posts but you do not get to pick and choose who can and can not respond to your posts.

I don't care how impartial or objective you are claiming to be. You said people were calling me a fool and you agree with them. That is you calling me a fool and therefore a direct personal insult. I believe that's against your charter here at boards.ie. If I call you stupid and say that's not an ad hominem because I am being impartial and objective does that grant me immunity from moderation? Here, I'll quote exactly where you broke the charter:

Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis

If I said people think you are a fool and I agree with them, do you think I might get carded for that? Maybe?

LoLth wrote: »

and this is rules lawyering and using the rules to protect yourself form the reaction to your own decision to post like an argumentative, soapboxing dick. But I am willing to bet you didn't re-read your posts after my comment with any intention of seeing if there could possibly have been a grain of truth to my assertion. I think you are happy that they broke a rule therefore you "win". Congratulations. If only there were more posters on the interwebz like you. Boards.ie has very few zero tolerance rules because we do encourage context to be taken into account. Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis and were I mod, I would give each a posted warning / post edit and maybe a yellow card.

Using the rules to protect yourself... this is an absolutely bizarre statement. What else are the rules here for except to protect posters from back seat modding and direct personal insults? Every time somebody reports personal abuse then you can now claim they were in fact at fault for reporting it.

LoLth wrote: »

aaaaand there it is. How were mods closing ranks? the emergency services mods have not given their opinion. I was giving my response to your feedback. Is it closing ranks just because I don't agree with you?

Ah, but you said you didn't agree with me before you even read the thread. You admitted fully what your predicted decision was before you had any information on which to base an opinion.

LoLth wrote: »

I notice you don't deny my assertion that you were smug, argumentative and being a dick or that you posted with the intention of argument and not discussion. Do I take it from this that you agree with my evaluation? Did you just admit to provoking posters? (bit like trolling that isn't it?)

Another totally ludicrious non-point. Just because I did not specifically deny something that increases my guilt? Really? You are more agresssive and argumentative than anybody was at Emergency Services. I guess by your own definition that makes you a bit like a troll.

LoLth wrote: »

please, continue the pedantic nitpicking sense of entitlement argument style, it really works well with me. (just for clarity, that bit isn't true at all but its in print so maybe you can quote it back to me later on in the thread to support some vaguely related point).

And "there it is". Anyone who tries to defend themselves is being pedantic and nitpicking. So your choices are to agree with you or else you are pedantic and nitpicking and therefore automatically wrong. Looks like more agressive sarcasm there at the end. Is that trolling? Like they say, it's banter when you do it, trolling when anyone else does.

Dan_Solo

Overheal wrote: »

Then when presented with pretty fair, legitimate scenarios, you just respond by complaining that it's not the same hypothetical scenario you were all ready to bitch and moan about. You got your knickers in a right twist when a user explained to you the simple and basic kinematics of highway pursuit - it really didnt matter what the perceived offense of the motorist was (driving with no seatbelt, using a phone, or in this case muddy license plate).

I'm sorry but this just reads like pure biased interpretation of an argument when you obviously back one side of it.
Of course you think your side is fair and legitimate.
Of course you think my side is rubbish.
This kind of vague meta-analysis is just another way of saying you think you were right all along.

Do you not think it's also not all that helpful to invent a hypothetical (and hyperbolic) scenario right here now to try to prove something or other while only a few lines earlier in your post complaining about me doing the exact same thing? Besides that you assert it's "fair, legitimate" and I don't agree?

Dan_Solo

Gordon wrote: »

Does someone have to read the whole of that thread in order to be allowed to thank Lolth's post?

Also, thanking a post has many meanings, some people could have specifically been thanking this line:

That's possible, but I find it hard to believe ALL the thanks are for that line, which is the only one in the post which doesn't require the thanker to haver read the thread to form a useful opinion on it.

Insect Overlord

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's possible, but I find it hard to believe ALL the thanks are for that line, which is the only one in the post which doesn't require the thanker to haver read the thread to form a useful opinion on it.

You're right! It's probably because loads of posters think you're a bit of a pain.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

You're right! It's probably because loads of posters think you're a bit of a pain.

Maybe they do.
That still doesn't mean they have read the thread to be able to form any meaningful opinion on the matter at hand.

Oryx

I read the other thread. To me, you come across as someone who is arguing just for the sake of it. You give the same impression here. While it might not be how you mean to come across, it might be worth taking on board that you do, and that it winds people up.

I also think you are labouring the point of the rules here, without accepting the part you had to play in the other thread going badly. If you don't want others to insult you, why goad them into it?

Shield

I think that any editing to post above might be missed by the masses because there's been quite a few posts since I signed on this morning.

For the record, in a thread as big as this, it's impossible to come to one overall conclusion. The only way to approach a big investigation is to break it down into small, manageable chunks. I can't say I'll break it down into X number of posts, because something pertinent may have been said further on down the line.

The only fair way to all is to break it down into incidents of charter breaches. Since it's 135 posts, it's going to take a tad longer than I thought, and will definitely fall over into tomorrow.

I apologise to the admins for not having a full opinion today, but stuff got in the way, and I'd like to wind down now rather that amp up. I will, however, be able to get my teeth stuck into this tomorrow, and will update this thread then.

-Shield.

KERSPLAT!

Shield wrote: »

I think that any editing to post above might be missed by the masses because there's been quite a few posts since I signed on this morning.

For the record, in a thread as big as this, it's impossible to come to one overall conclusion. The only way to approach a big investigation is to break it down into small, manageable chunks. I can't say I'll break it down into X number of posts, because something pertinent may have been said further on down the line.

The only fair way to all is to break it down into incidents of charter breaches. Since it's 135 posts, it's going to take a tad longer than I thought, and will definitely fall over into tomorrow.

I apologise to the admins for not having a full opinion today, but stuff got in the way, and I'd like to wind down now rather that amp up. I will, however, be able to get my teeth stuck into this tomorrow, and will update this thread then.

-Shield.

You're a volunteer here, take your time

Dan_Solo

Oryx wrote: »

I also think you are labouring the point of the rules here, without accepting the part you had to play in the other thread going badly. If you don't want others to insult you, why goad them into it?

But anybody can use that excuse. I broke the charter because I was goaded into it.
I accept I was part of an argument. I do not accept I was anywhere near the most aggressive or argumentative person on that thread, and I certainly never engaged in either back seat modding or direct personal insults.

Dan_Solo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You're a volunteer here, take your time

Good to hear. No rush at all.
No idea how so many others have formed an opinion on that thread so quickly when they obviously haven't read it though.

Oryx

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Good to hear. No rush at all.
No idea how so many others have formed an opinion on that thread so quickly when they obviously haven't read it though.

Reading and moderating require different levels of analysis I presume.

Dan_Solo

Oryx wrote: »

Reading and moderating require different levels of analysis I presume.

True, but that doesn't explain why people would support a moderation opinion on that thread unless they had also read it in sufficient detail to make that opinion useful.

Oryx

Dan_Solo wrote: »

True, but that doesn't explain why people would support a moderation opinion on that thread unless they had also read it in sufficient detail to make that opinion useful.

In my case, the opinion I gave was mine alone, not in support of any particular side. Perhaps others are the same.