Moderation in the Irish Water thread?

dudara

@Baldy Conscience - I have deleted your post as it is not specific to this complaint, and there were previous warnings to remain on topic.

dudara

Lovely Bloke

ok then

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

It is as Alf has referenced.

and therein lies the problem, people can miss that action is taken, they may not be aware if people have been banned etc. Or then you have views that action is too lenient or too harsh, as we've seen on this thread.

With a forum like the cafe, and particularly with threads like Irish Water there appears to be no middle ground, you've two sides of the argument who refuse to meet anywhere in the middle.

In my opinion, closing the thread permanently would not be a bad idea, as at this stage it's simply an echo chamber of the same subject matter going around and around in circles. Not that I'm suggesting that will happen however.

I can see your point, however surely the self-confessed baiting and an out and out inference that someone is in need of a psychiatrist are worthy of a ban ?

Especially as I got one previously for referencing a typo in a post that I was supporting and backing them up 100% ?

So - despite what you typed above, which I do accept - there is still a serious issue with even-handedness and what is "acceptable", as highlighted by the OP.

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

It is as Alf has referenced.

and therein lies the problem, people can miss that action is taken, they may not be aware if people have been banned etc. Or then you have views that action is too lenient or too harsh, as we've seen on this thread.

With a forum like the cafe, and particularly with threads like Irish Water there appears to be no middle ground, you've two sides of the argument who refuse to meet anywhere in the middle.

In my opinion, closing the thread permanently would not be a bad idea, as at this stage it's simply an echo chamber of the same subject matter going around and around in circles. Not that I'm suggesting that will happen however.

And what with the numerous requests for this exact thing to happen, all from govt/irish water supporters, who are witnessing lies (careful now) and propaganda, controversies and corruption being exposed each week.

If that happens. Some may say job done.

dudara

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

And what with the numerous requests for this exact thing to happen, all from govt/irish water supporters, who are witnessing lies (careful now) and propaganda, controversies and corruption being exposed each week.

If that happens. Some may say job done.

Don't be daft, and please don't bring the Irish Water arguments from Politics Cafe into this forum. They have zero relevance here and attempting to insert them is not welcome.

If ever that thread were to be closed, it would be because it was timesink for mods, and/or had ran its course. If someone wants to interpret a greater agenda into such a potential decision, then I'd kindly point them in the direction of the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Alf Stewart.

dudara wrote: »

Don't be daft, and please don't bring the Irish Water arguments from Politics Cafe into this forum. They have zero relevance here and attempting to insert them is not welcome.

If ever that thread were to be closed, it would be because it was timesink for mods, and/or had ran its course. If someone wants to interpret a greater agenda into such a potential decision, then I'd kindly point them in the direction of the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Lol.

Says it all really.

Edit, to be clear, I'm not suggesting stheno would wish to see the thread closed, but after the train wreck of last weekend (I was out of the country, so thankfully had practically zero posts anywhere) one would have to wonder if the constant derailment attempts were deliberate.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Edit, to be clear, I'm not suggesting stheno would wish to see the thread closed, but after the train wreck of last weekend (I was out of the country, so thankfully had practically zero posts anywhere) one would have to wonder if the constant derailment attempts were deliberate.

I have to wonder sometimes why people a. cannot follow the charter, and b. cannot use the ignore button if they feel they are going to react to someone who has the polar opposite opinion of them. Instead threads like the IW thread occasionally descend into chaos, and on this particular occasion for various reasons mods were not around as much as usual, and the thread descended into pure nonsense.

Decent Skin

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Lol.

Says it all really.

Edit, to be clear, I'm not suggesting stheno would wish to see the thread closed, but after the train wreck of last weekend (I was out of the country, so thankfully had practically zero posts anywhere) one would have to wonder if the constant derailment attempts were deliberate.

No question in my mind re that; either trying to get it closed or trying to get those that are able for them banned.

As the OP said, though, it's one thing for them to do it (they've been at it since years ago) but it's quite another for them to brazenly confess to it in-thread and not fear sanctions!

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

I have to wonder sometimes why people a. cannot follow the charter, and b. cannot use the ignore button if they feel they are going to react to someone who has the polar opposite opinion of them. Instead threads like the IW thread occasionally descend into chaos, and on this particular occasion for various reasons mods were not around as much as usual, and the thread descended into pure nonsense.

Said ignore button also stifles discussion, on the rare occasion that one of them does post something on-topic that requires rebuttal.

That said I did raise a query re why those on ignore still show up on the "My threads" as a "last poster:" entry.

None of the above negates the fact that we had someone outright admitting to baiting (not even on the topic but on a personal and off-topic tangent) under no apparent fear of sanction.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

No question in my mind re that; either trying to get it closed or trying to get those that are able for them banned.

As the OP said, though, it's one thing for them to do it (they've been at it since years ago) but it's quite another for them to brazenly confess to it in-thread and not fear sanctions!

You can't say for certain who did or did not get sanctions though? You are merely claiming that no sanctions were handed out with no proof that that is the case?

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

You can't say for certain who did or did not get sanctions though? You are merely claiming that no sanctions were handed out with no proof that that is the case?

I said that it was new for them to "not fear sanctions"; not that they weren't given them. That is an outright two-fingers to mods, IMHO.

They posted in the thread a few hours after I was banned, and so weren't (initially) banned anyway.

The perceived lack of cards I mentioned earlier seems to be either a change in boards or a browser issue, where they are no longer visible when logged out; I'll accept that.

But again - it was let get well out of hand and moderation in that thread has been flaky, inconsistent and biased to date, which is the OP's point.

Given the previous motive incorrectly attributed to my own previous case mentioned earlier, I would be very interested in hearing what an appropriate sanction would be for a sustained, self-confessed baiting episode on a personal off-topic subject would be ?

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

They posted in the thread a few hours after I was banned, and so weren't (initially) banned anyway.

The perceived lack of cards I mentioned earlier seems to be either a change in boards or a browser issue, where they are no longer visible when logged out; I'll accept that.

But again - it was let get well out of hand and moderation in that thread has been flaky, inconsistent and biased to date, which is the OP's point.

Given the previous motive incorrectly attributed to my own previous case mentioned earlier, I would be very interested in hearing what an appropriate sanction would be for a sustained, self-confessed baiting episode on a personal off-topic subject would be ?

Sanctions for poor behaviour take time to implement, there was plenty of discussion on Sunday evening amongst the mods as to appropriate sanctions and numerous were applied, not all of which are visible, warnings and infractions are but not bans.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

Sanctions for poor behaviour take time to implement, there was plenty of discussion on Sunday evening amongst the mods as to appropriate sanctions and numerous were applied, not all of which are visible, warnings and infractions are but not bans.

It was far worse than "poor behaviour" to be honest.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

It was far worse than "poor behaviour" to be honest.

Poor behaviour is my blanket term for anything that breaches the charter and needs to be actioned not a judgement of how bad the behaviour was.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

i

In my opinion, closing the thread permanently would not be a bad idea, as at this stage it's simply an echo chamber of the same subject matter going around and around in circles. Not that I'm suggesting that will happen however.

I'm not sure how any mod could have any opinion on the thread because it is apparent that no one was moderating it.

And that doesn't anyone expects them to be looking at it 24/7.

But in a 24 hour period this kind of thing happened:
theres so much of it from the same poster in one 24 hour period I can't even take a screenshot.

Admitting to baiting, luring, alleging back seat modding and resorting to personal abuse.

And not one mod wants to have anything to do with it.

PM me. PM me.

I got yellow carded for reminding others of how this poster behaved, whilst no one was moderating, and the person he was baiting ended up being banned.

Appartently it wasn't ok with a mod that I reposted the extensive list of what they'd already either missed or turned a blind eye to, because i got a yellow card for it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100457049&postcount=6002


That was a mistake.
You guys know it.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

Poor behaviour is my blanket term for anything that breaches the charter and needs to be actioned not a judgement of how bad the behaviour was.

I'd have used "unacceptable", to be honest. "Poor" gives the impression of a level of tolerance.

Anyway, as I've learnt previously there's little point debating once some mod's mind is made up, regardless of whether or not they're wrong, so hopefully someone will take note of the pattern and the points raised in the OP.

I'll leave it there.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm not sure how any mod could have any opinion on the thread because it is apparent that no one was moderating it.

And that doesn't anyone expects them to be looking at it 24/7.

But in a 24 hour period this kind of thing happened:
theres so much of it from the same poster in one 24 hour period I can't even take a screenshot.

Admitting to baiting, luring, alleging back seat modding and resorting to personal abuse.

And not one mod wants to have anything to do with it.

PM me. PM me.

I got yellow carded for reminding others of how this poster behaved, whilst no one was moderating, and the person he was baiting ended up being banned.

Appartently it wasn't ok with a mod that I reposted the extensive list of what they'd already either missed or turned a blind eye to, because i got a yellow card for it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100457049&postcount=6002


That was a mistake.
You guys know it.

I know most of the mods were not around for the 24 hours you mention, I wasn't due to personal commitments, it's not expected that mods be available 24 hours a day tbh.

Your card as I've already explained was for then ignoring a mod warning when mods got back online.

As for pm me, I posted a specific message to Alf to Pm the mod who carded him which he responded to in thread, not pm me with any issues you have.

Taltos

As Stheno just called out the mods are not on site 24*7 and with the weekend that was in it I'd expect even fewer were about.

So based on the screenshot above of some pretty damning evidence I did what I'd expect the mods to do, checked their reported posts.
I found ONE reported post on that user for the whole duration of that time. One. And being just one reported post I have to assume between managing the threads and reviewing other reported posts it might have been missed.

The mods are not and cannot be expected to read each and every single thread and post. We try, but a huge, no a massive part in moderating really does rely on posts being reported. Don't misunderstand me here, where mods moderate just on reported posts that isn't good either, but a key component of any forum working consistently is a collaborative approach from everyone. And I mean responsible reporting of posts with clear and concise reasons why it was reported, sometimes I admit that when I see a reported post with little or no context I find it difficult to see why it was reported while other mods see it straight away. As I said though, responsible reporting, abusing the reporting function just to consolidate your argument or to be a d1ck is actionable.

Going Forward, as you have some of these quoted it would be great if you can report say the top three, even include a link to this thread. Although I'd say now as you said the horse has bolted and the mods are aware of it but even so.

One consistent thing in here is back seat moderating is never tolerated, well as close to never as you can get there will always be exceptions to every rule, but the advice is always thus with trolls
1) Don't respond or engage.
2) Just report and as above include why you're reporting
3) Move on, worst case use the Ignore feature, spaghetti monster knows I miss being able to use it.

Again thanks GF for the quotes above - the definitely add context to your concerns but I do hope that between us all here you can see why you were still carded. Remember, walking away is sometimes the best choice even if someone is crying out to be called a time waster or worse...

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

I know most of the mods were not around for the 24 hours you mention, I wasn't due to personal commitments, it's not expected that mods be available 24 hours a day tbh.

Your card as I've already explained was for then ignoring a mod warning when mods got back online.

As for pm me, I posted a specific message to Alf to Pm the mod who carded him which he responded to in thread, not pm me with any issues you have.

What color card did the baiting poster get?

And what do Mods want to be PM'd about exactly?

The weather?

It's quite clear that if it's anything about the thread neither you or Quin Dub want to discuss it.

You told me to come here after I PM'd you after I saw you in thread advsising another poster to PM a mod.

I had already PM'd Quin Dub at that stage who didn't reply.

And it's not as if I regularly PM Mods wasting time or with an axe to grind.

I don't.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

What color card did the baiting poster get?

And what do Mods want to be PM'd about exactly?

The weather?

It's quite clear that if it's anything about the thread neither you or Quin Dub want to discuss it.

You told me to come here after I PM'd you after I saw you in thread advsising another poster to PM a mod.

I had already PM'd Quin Dub at that stage who didn't reply.

And it's not as if I regularly PM Mods wasting time or with an axe to grind.

I don't.

My post that you keep referring to was a post by Alf giving out about being carded, where I told him to pm a mod about mod action rather than posting on thread as per the rules.

I'm not sure what you cannot understand about that, or why you thought it was an invitation to you to pm me or Quin Dub, rather than report posts.

As Taltos said, there was ONE reported post in relation to the thread all weekend.

Taltos

Sorry Stheno, 1 RP for that quoted user admitting to baiting. But there was more than that but I think G F knows that based on the card they received... I think there were 3 or 4 in total which all were actioned, just as above that single RP was missed, which happens.

Stheno

Taltos wrote: »

Sorry Stheno, 1 RP for that quoted user admitting to baiting. But there was more than that but I think G F knows that based on the card they received... I think there were 3 or 4 in total which all were actioned, just as above that single RP was missed, which happens.

Ah thanks for the clarification, I remember checking my email when I was out and about and not notiing any significant number of reported posts, if anything it was lower than most weekday reports, so didn't think anything particularly bad was going on if that makes sense.

Taltos

Yup, numbers are down for IW reports definitely. I've bumped that one back up so the team can see it front page again. Cheers.

Decent Skin

Taltos wrote: »

Sorry Stheno, 1 RP for that quoted user admitting to baiting. But there was more than that but I think G F knows that based on the card they received... I think there were 3 or 4 in total which all were actioned, just as above that single RP was missed, which happens.

As one of those actioned can I just clarify that at least one of those 3 or 4 was after the fact, and after the in-thread warning, at which stage even the post which I replied to was off-topic enough to be borderline.

The biggest issue in the thread - and the only two that I reported - were the two mentioned; the personal dig and the baiting; I was ultra-cautious having been previously incorrectly accused of reporting "just because I disagreed with someone" and did not want to fall foul of that misconception again.

I do find it odd that the report of the confession was the one "missed"; these things do happen, as do misconceptions and errors, but when they seem to happen in an imbalanced manner (either though frequency or level of offence) then it does call the required impartiality into question; hence GF's starting of this thread, I suspect.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

As one of those actioned can I just clarify that at least one of those 3 or 4 was after the fact, and after the in-thread warning, at which stage even the post which I replied to was off-topic enough to be borderline.

The biggest issue in the thread - and the only two that I reported - were the two mentioned; the personal dig and the baiting; I was ultra-cautious having been previously incorrectly accused of reporting "just because I disagreed with someone" and did not want to fall foul of that misconception again.

I do find it odd that the report of the confession was the one "missed"; these things do happen, as do misconceptions and errors, but when they seem to happen in an imbalanced manner (either though frequency or level of offence) then it does call the required impartiality into question; hence GF's starting of this thread, I suspect.

So how soon do you expect reported posts to be actioned?

And given that posters on both sides got sanctions, where is the basis for your claim of moderator bias?

Taltos

Yup, get how that looks, but as far as I know there isn't any collusion here. In this instance it really does just seem that the RP was simply overlooked or missed. Most of the mods were having fun in the sun at the weekend and these things do fall through the cracks.

Seriously though, I'm sure the mods and cmods will review and see if there's anything they can do to try to prevent repeats, but being human and with fast moving threads we can't guarantee that similar occurences won't happen in the future, all we can do is try our best to check off each RP as we go through them.

Either way without you and GF flagging this we still wouldn't have known they'd been missed, so thanks for that.

Decent Skin

Taltos wrote: »

Yup, get how that looks, but as far as I know there isn't any collusion here. In this instance it really does just seem that the RP was simply overlooked or missed. Most of the mods were having fun in the sun at the weekend and these things do fall through the cracks.

Seriously though, I'm sure the mods and cmods will review and see if there's anything they can do to try to prevent repeats, but being human and with fast moving threads we can't guarantee that similar occurences won't happen in the future, all we can do is try our best to check off each RP as we go through them.

Either way without you and GF flagging this we still wouldn't have known they'd been missed, so thanks for that.

Appreciate it Taltos. No-one's expecting volunteers to be on-call all the time, nor correct all the time, but the feedback process and an ability to be heard and an outcome that indicates a fair hearing and impartiality is important.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

So how soon do you expect reported posts to be actioned?

And given that posters on both sides got sanctions, where is the basis for your claim of moderator bias?

Did you not look at the screenshot?

The guy walked all over the mods, the charter and everyone else too.

You cannot claim to be displaying a non biased attitude now simply on the basis of handing a few cards out to everyone because everyone wasnt behaving that way.

What colour card did he get? Or is he a moderator now?

Did you know that a Moderator asked me in the Irish Water thread if I was retarded?

He wasn't a moderator at the time but was made one about a week after.

So maybe the guy doing all the baiting is one now too, I genuinely don't know.

No one on the "anti water charges side" yes, there is one, reports anything because they know that they're not taken seriously.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

Did you not look at the screenshot?

The guy walked all over the mods, the charter and everyone else too.

You cannot claim to be displaying a non biased attitude now simply on the basis of handing a few cards out to everyone because everyone wasnt behaving that way.

What colour card did he get? Or is he a moderator now?

Did you know that a Moderator asked me in the Irish Water thread if I was retarded?

He wasn't a moderator at the time but was made one about a week after.

So maybe the guy doing all the baiting is one now too, I genuinely don't know.

No one on the "anti water charges side" yes, there is one, reports anything because they know that they're not taken seriously.

I'd refer you to Taltos's post above tbh, it explains most of your claims fairly lucidly

Plenty of the anti water charges side report posts, I get to read every one of the reports.
This past weekend, there were very few as Taltos post refers to.

Spurious reporting is against the charter, but genuine reporting again as Taltos's post refers to are actioned the vast majority of the time.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

I'd refer you to Taltos's post above tbh, it explains most of your claims fairly lucidly

Plenty of the anti water charges side report posts, I get to read every one of the reports.
This past weekend, there were very few as Taltos post refers to.

Spurious reporting is against the charter, but genuine reporting again as Taltos's post refers to are actioned the vast majority of the time.

In fairness Stheno I mentioned above that I was VERY slow to report in the thread having previously being falsely accused of exactly what Taltos mentioned; while the 2+ posts that GF highlighted were bad enough for me to act, the past experience of ironically being the recipient of the action made me very slow to report the other borderline ones, in fear of a repeat.

Reporting someone for repeatedly dragging it off-topic or minor irritations has become negligible, as outlined in the level of reports from that thread, for the above reason; the effect is then that the offenders escalate their attack, knowing they'll probably get away with it, with the results that we saw over the weekend.

In contrast, a minor ballhop - which could often lighten a discussion that gets out of hand - is reported by the "other side", and slaps on the wrist ensue. In fairness here I will point out that there are maybe 2 pros who can take that in true "Politics Cafe" spirit, but others interject to do their best to ensure that it escalates, or that their opponent gets carded.

Double-standards are par for the course too, as per the outright accusations of lying vs someone ducking and spoofing having been called on their own "turn of phrase".