Over zealous, and inconsistent modding on the politics cafe forum.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I assume this is me that you're referring to?

I'm a rereg, i don't get your fascination on it tbh. Perhaps if i was a banned user, circumventing a ban, you may be on to something, but as it stands, i just used the close account function and opened a new one.

My choice to close my previous account wasn't to do with a ban, or a protest act etc etc, I closed my account and opened a new one simply because i could. (So can you, if you wish)

Now, considering i opened a new account, posted in exactly the same forums, in the exact same style with the exact same opinions, i was hardly ever trying to disguise the new identity?

So, simple question.

If you think you have discovered my old account through some form of brilliant undercover investigation work, considering it (my old account) wasn't serving a ban, or perma-ban, and also considering that I never tried to disguise my new account/relevant to a new one.

Why do you care or why is it relevant?

There s a rule in the charter about rereg's, and it gets upheld when it's broken?

If I break other sections of the charter, I get sanctioned.

Call someone a troll? Sanctioned.
Call someone a shill? Sanctioned.
Personally abusive? Sanctioned.
Advise someone of being a rereg? Sanctioned.

Why the outrage? Why the fascination? I could name prob twenty new accounts and link them to their old ones, but i can't think of any reason why i would ever want to, unless it's a banned poster.


You seem to have a bit of an infatuation on me. Stop it.

Such as?

+1, and you did explain your re-reg at the time (as did I).

Going Forward wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057591263

We are forbidden to openly speculate, yet someone can openly rereg and enjoy protection from speculation about their prior identity as long as they openly admit it, but "concerns" can be reported?

What "concerns" exactly?

Speculation is prohibited, so can I ask the rereg in question to share their previous identity with us now that they have admitted to being a rereg, and isn't it incumbent upon them to openly answer, being so open in their admission?

If not boards is descending into pure charades.


The rereg has the upper hand, pretending to be "someone else" on one topic whilst simultaneously pretending not to be "someone else" on a different topic.

And it seems I attract the same infatuation as well.

The difference is, blackwhite is only citing your existence, while Going Forward is continually trying to out my identity on this thread. For all I know, seeing as s/he only joined in 2010, that account may also be a re-reg, not that I am bothered.

blackwhite

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I assume this is me that you're referring to?

I'm a rereg, i don't get your fascination on it tbh. Perhaps if i was a banned user, circumventing a ban, you may be on to something, but as it stands, i just used the close account function and opened a new one.

My choice to close my previous account wasn't to do with a ban, or a protest act etc etc, I closed my account and opened a new one simply because i could. (So can you, if you wish)

Now, considering i opened a new account, posted in exactly the same forums, in the exact same style with the exact same opinions, i was hardly ever trying to disguise the new identity?

So, simple question.

If you think you have discovered my old account through some form of brilliant undercover investigation work, considering it (my old account) wasn't serving a ban, or perma-ban, and also considering that I never tried to disguise my new account/relevant to a new one.

Why do you care or why is it relevant?

There s a rule in the charter about rereg's, and it gets upheld when it's broken?

If I break other sections of the charter, I get sanctioned.

Call someone a troll? Sanctioned.
Call someone a shill? Sanctioned.
Personally abusive? Sanctioned.
Advise someone of being a rereg? Sanctioned.

Why the outrage? Why the fascination? I could name prob twenty new accounts and link them to their old ones, but i can't think of any reason why i would ever want to, unless it's a banned poster.


You seem to have a bit of an infatuation on me. Stop it.

Such as?

Much and all as I'm sure you enjoy stroking your own ego, I don't have any particular fascination with you - my point was more around the fact that there was nobody calling for re-regs to out themselves until one specific poster entered the thread - but strangely were none of the same calls for other reregs to identify themselves previously.

I'm not trying to have a pop at you - you've never tried to pretend anything about your previous history - my comment is that it seems very odd that, despite you being so open about who you are/were, any reference to previous postings or previous arguments that were put forward under old usernames are considered off-limits, and will result in swift mod invervention - but yet we are able to have public comments on this thread about the previous postings from our "new" member from D15.
It seems his past posting history is fair game for discussion, but the previous postings of others are not.

Alf Stewart.

It's a load of arse

Poster A states something about a TD or political party that may be an uncomfortable truth to poster B.

Poster B, responds by saying "so what, you're a rereg"

If blackwhite could repond with his reasons why they think it's relevant, or state their concerns concerns as to why they think its pertinent, it would clear it up.

From the outside looking in, looks like a pointless pretty point score is all.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

It's a load of arse

Poster A states something about a TD or political party that may be an uncomfortable truth to poster B.

Poster B, responds by saying "so what, you're a rereg"

If blackwhite could repond with his reasons why they think it's relevant, or state their concerns concerns as to why they think its pertinent, it would clear it up.

From the outside looking in, looks like a pointless pretty point score is all.

To be fair blackwhite is only reacting in this discussion, and appears to share similar views to yourself. Going Forward is leading the charge on the re-reg issue.

Phoebas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is a fine example of where things descend into point scoring. Yeah there was a report and yeah southern politicians are still referencing it in a superficial, tone deaf manner. There was a thread here that robustly rebutted the headlines with posts such as:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97451627&postcount=57

This isn't the correct forum to discuss the issue, but I note that it isn't a banned topic in the Café, and as you referenced, it was the subject of a discussion in AH. That AH thread was eventually closed because the AH mods decided that the subject was proper to Politics, not AH.

So, setting aside the merits or demerits of it (or that some people think it was rebutted, or not), it still remains something that people want to discuss and debate.

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite wrote: »

Much and all as I'm sure you enjoy stroking your own ego, I don't have any particular fascination with you - my point was more around the fact that there was nobody calling for re-regs to out themselves until one specific poster entered the thread - but strangely were none of the same calls for other reregs to identify themselves previously.

I'm not trying to have a pop at you - you've never tried to pretend anything about your previous history - my comment is that it seems very odd that, despite you being so open about who you are/were, any reference to previous postings or previous arguments that were put forward under old usernames are considered off-limits, and will result in swift mod invervention - but yet we are able to have public comments on this thread about the previous postings from our "new" member from D15.
It seems his past posting history is fair game for discussion, but the previous postings of others are not.

Wrong on couple of points.

I have never outted myself, I have never confirmed or denied what my old account was, I don't see the relevancy in it tbh.

The other poster came in the thread, stated that they closed their old account for a specific reason, and that it basically was in protest at being sanctioned.

So far as I can see, no one has actually referenced their old account, their posting history was being discussed as a direct result of the poster stating that it was their old posts being sanctioned that prompted them to pop in this thread, and basically out themselves.

There's a world of difference.

blackwhite

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

It's a load of arse

Poster A states something about a TD or political party that may be an uncomfortable truth to poster B.

Poster B, responds by saying "so what, you're a rereg"

If blackwhite could repond with his reasons why they think it's relevant, or state their concerns concerns as to why they think its pertinent, it would clear it up.

From the outside looking in, looks like a pointless pretty point score is all.

As I've said above, I don't particularly care whether or not you are a rereg.

You've misinterpreted my original post (which never referenced you) to try and twist it into some personal attack. Whether that's oversensitivity, ego, or something else I don't know?

My point is that discussion of someone's postings made under previous accounts is forbidden across boards - except when it comes to our new member from D15;
Nobody on this thread made any references to re-regs (that I noticed anyway) - except when it comes to our new member from D15;
and strangely enough - nobody was asking for reregs to be outed someone's postings made under previous accounts is forbidden across boards - except when it comes to our new member from D15.

That's what I mean by double standards.

When we've had a thread descend into gloating from a cadre of posters who finally managed to hound someone into closing their account - and suddenly we get a discussion about reregs once our newest contributor posts on here.......... it certainly seems that behavour that wouldn't be tolerated towards any other poster is allowed if targeted at the "right" people.

blackwhite

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Wrong on couple of points.

It's good to see petty point scoring isn't why you are here then
Is it just plain aggression towards the perceived "enemy"?

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I have never outted myself, I have never confirmed or denied what my old account was, I don't see the relevancy in it tbh.

I didn't mean to imply that you did - I just meant that you've made it pretty obvious to any regular poster who you are/were. I fully agree that it's irrelevant.

The only issue I would ever see was that if someone used a new account to post stuff that completely contradicted what they used argue under the old handle (more of a dislike for blatant hypocrisy than anthing else) - but in such a case I'm not sure anyone would ever make the link between the two accounts.

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite wrote: »

As I've said above, I don't particularly care whether or not you are a rereg.

You've misinterpreted my original post (which never referenced you) to try and twist it into some personal attack. Whether that's oversensitivity, ego, or something else I don't know?

Would you like a link to where you openly seem frustrated from discussing someone's(mine) old account?

My point is that discussion of someone's postings made under previous accounts is forbidden across boards - except when it comes to our new member from D15;
Nobody on this thread made any references to re-regs (that I noticed anyway) - except when it comes to our new member from D15;
and strangely enough - nobody was asking for reregs to be outed someone's postings made under previous accounts is forbidden across boards - except when it comes to our new member from D15.

That's what I mean by double standards.

A new poster enters a thread, immediately states they're posting from a new account, because they were asked to refrain from posting certain references and slogans, moderators reply as to why the posts may come across as inflammatory or goading, and why they were asked to refrain from making such posts in the future.

If i understand you correctly, you want to see the new poster sanctioned for referencing their own posts they made in the past?

Or the moderator sanctioned for explaining why they asked same poster to not make the same posts in the future.

Not seeing the double standards myself.

When we've had a thread descend into gloating from a cadre of posters who finally managed to hound someone into closing their account - and suddenly we get a discussion about reregs once our newest contributor posts on here.......... it certainly seems that behavour that wouldn't be tolerated towards any other poster is allowed if targeted at the "right" people.

As already pointed out, the new posters very first sentence was that they had reregged, due to their previous posts being sanctioned.

Are you seriously wondering how the discussion turned into discussing reregs, and their previous posts?

blackwhite

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Would you like a link to where you openly seem frustrated from discussing someone's(mine) old account?

Weren't you the one claiming I was obssessed with you? But yet you appear to be keen on trawling back through my old posts? :rolleyes:


If your referencing some posts from when you first utilised this account - that's when I was first made aware that referencing someone's history was verboten - up till then I'd assumed that if a previous identity appeared to be common knowledge then it was fair game. But hey - once you can engage in a bit more point-scoring I guess that's the important thing right

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite wrote: »

Weren't you the one claiming I was obssessed with you? But yet you appear to be keen on trawling back through my old posts? :rolleyes:

If by trawling back, you mean my memory goes back a few months, then yeah. (Roll eyes, nice)

If your referencing some posts from when you first utilised this account - that's when I was first made aware that referencing someone's history was verboten - up till then I'd assumed that if a previous identity appeared to be common knowledge then it was fair game. But hey - once you can engage in a bit more point-scoring I guess that's the important thing right

You are aware of how a message board works I assume, you've repeatedly brought up the rereg red herring, in this very thread (and others) and you're insinuating there's some kind of double standards at play.

When someone posts coherent points that contradict you, you then try and claim someone's merely point scoring.

Arguing your point would suit you better tbh.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

As already pointed out, the new posters very first sentence was that they had reregged, due to their previous posts being sanctioned.

No, it wasn't:

blanch152 wrote: »

I am one of those who left fed up with the way the Cafe is run and moderated. .

That can be read many ways, not just the way you have selectively interpreted it.

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

No, but it might be to "require" them to do so, which you were suggesting was "incumbent" on them

I didn't suggest it was incumbent upon them, I asked if it was:

Speculation is prohibited, so can I ask the rereg in question to share their previous identity with us now that they have admitted to being a rereg, and isn't it incumbent upon them to openly answer, being so open in their admission?

Little CuChulainn

What exactly is the point or benefit in knowing if someone is a rereg? If they are trying to avoid a ban or if they are sock puppeting then that's against the rules. Otherwise why does it matter?

Alf Stewart.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What exactly is the point or benefit in knowing if someone is a rereg? If they are trying to avoid a ban or if they are sock puppeting then that's against the rules. Otherwise why does it matter?

Because when they are posting stuff that may be an inconvenient truth, calling them out as a rereg is relevant, it gets one over on them (I think)

blackwhite

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

If by trawling back, you mean my memory goes back a few months, then yeah. (Roll eyes, nice)


You are aware of how a message board works I assume, you've repeatedly brought up the rereg red herring, in this very thread (and others) and you're insinuating there's some kind of double standards at play.

When someone posts coherent points that contradict you, you then try and claim someone's merely point scoring.

Arguing your point would suit you better tbh.

Posting without trying to make everything personal (whether looking for a reaction or otherwise) would suit you better tbh - but doesn't seem to be very likely.

I didn't bring up the reregs question here - just pointed out how the first call for all reregs to identify their previous accounts appears immediately after we get a specific poster on this thread.
This poster also gets a warning in thread about their previous history carrying over.
Does everyone else who decides to close their account, and then open a new one get a warning like that posted on a public thread?

Considering the tolerance shown for repeated instances of baiting and personal attacks towards one pro-Govt poster in the past, up to the point of multiple posters engaging in a lovely thread of floating after their account closure, then yes, I've formed a strong opinion at this stage that there's certain posters not afforded the same protection under the rules as the majority are.

Alf Stewart.

blanch wrote:

No, it wasn't:

Your now attempting to rewrite history, and it's beneath you.

You're now claiming im selectively quoting you and interpreting your words in a biased manner, despite all your follow-up posts continuing to discuss it?

That can be read many ways, not just the way you have selectively interpreted it.

It can be down to you posting exactly what you posted.

blackwhite

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Your now attempting to rewrite history, and it's beneath you.

You're choosing to not see what's clear to be seen, you opened the rereg can of worms repeatedly over several threads, and now want to weasel out of it.

I have no interest in discussing it any further with you tbh.




It can be down to them stating exactly what they stated.

Is re-writing history something that includes manipulating the quote feature to pretend I posted something that someone else did?

Going Forward

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair blackwhite is only reacting in this discussion, and appears to share similar views to yourself. Going Forward is leading the charge on the re-reg issue.

Boards rules prevents me from openly speculating as to re regs.

And I believe that puts you at something of an advantage in terms of affecting a position of not having interacted previously if I were to ask you if we have previously interacted.

You've disparagingly mentioned the Irish Water threads a number of times now and that's pretty much the only place I post.

Were you posting there too by any chance?

And if I were to ask you what your old username was, would you answer?

I don't know if it's incumbent upon you to answer as freely as you've admitted to registering a new account.

Perhaps management can advise on that?

WinnyThePoo

Great to see more mods. I wish them luck.

Can't see myself posting too much though if the what about crowd continue to spoil every fecking thread

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite wrote: »

Is re-writing history something that includes manipulating the quote feature to pretend I posted something that someone else did?

Apologies that was a genuine mistake. Posting from mobile and I wrongly thought the quoted posts were funked up a bit

Going Forward

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What exactly is the point or benefit in knowing if someone is a rereg? If they are trying to avoid a ban or if they are sock puppeting then that's against the rules. Otherwise why does it matter?

It's not about knowing if someone is a rereg. I don't wish to know who is a rereg or who isn't.

But when anyone starts firing brickbats in your direction in their first few posts as a self confessed rereg wouldn't it be useful to know who's hiding behind the new nom de plume so that we can rule out sour grapes in their previous existence here as being the reason for their behaviour?

I have now been accused by them of "trying to out" their identity.

That is not the case.

I can assure you and them that a PM will suffice.

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

I didn't suggest it was incumbent upon them, I asked if it was:

It was very clear from the way you phrased it you thought it was incumbent on them. All I was showing was it clearly is not

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Your now attempting to rewrite history, and it's beneath you.

You're now claiming im selectively quoting you and interpreting your words in a biased manner, despite all your follow-up posts continuing to discuss it?




It can be down to you posting exactly what you posted.

Again, this is what I said:

blanch152 wrote: »

I am one of those who left fed up with the way the Cafe is run and moderated. Won't be back until things change.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is good to have had clarity on the use of the SF/IRA abbreviation.

The main reason I closed my previous account was because of the clampdown on its use.

.

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you misunderstand my point Alf.

My account closure wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to being asked to stop using a certain phrase. That was just the final catalyst, I had already reduced the amount of posting I was doing in the Cafe and had moved on elsewhere.



You can spend your life in DRP (though I have never challenged a mod action in DRP as it would create too much work for them), or you can just walk away and go elsewhere. I have chosen to do the latter, just popping back once in a while for a read.

Once again, to be clear, I am not generally accusing the mods of politically motivated action, just that their responses are understandable in relation to the pressure created by politically motivated action by groups of posters.

blanch152 wrote: »

I fully accept that and while my record may be poor, you will also note that I have always respected mod decisions.

You refer to the reasons for my account closure as "they had reregged, due to their previous posts being sanctioned."

That is definitively not the case, it is much more nuanced than that. As shown above, it is the censorship of discussion that bothered me, not my posts being sanctioned. There is a big difference.

I have always made clear that I have respected mod decisions, your interpretation of my reasons suggests that I don't. It is the policy not to allow discussion of SF/IRA in contemporary terms (despite the likes of Martin discussing it in public) that bothered me, not the specific actions against myself.

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, this is what I said:









You refer to the reasons for my account closure as "they had reregged, due to their previous posts being sanctioned."

Ok

That is definitively not the case, it is much more nuanced than that. As shown above, it is the censorship of discussion that bothered me, not my posts being sanctioned. There is a big difference.

It is good to have had clarity on the use of the SF/IRA abbreviation.

The main reason I closed my previous account was because of the clampdown on its use.

Sorry if I misunderstood the reason you gave as your "main reason for closing your account was for a clampdown" on a phrase the mods have decided is inflammatory.

The main reason you closed your account was obviously some other reason. Silly me.

I have always made clear that I have respected mod decisions, your interpretation of my reasons suggests that I don't. It is the policy not to allow discussion of SF/IRA in contemporary terms (despite the likes of Martin discussing it in public) that bothered me, not the specific actions against myself.

I can only interpret what you post.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I have to agree. Was reading a few threads on the Politics and Politics Cafe forums and they were littered with cards.

I do absolutely agree that moderation is necessary but being too heavy handed stifles debate and makes people be overly safe in their posts.

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

It was very clear from the way you phrased it you thought it was incumbent on them. All I was showing was it clearly is not

It was clearly a question, it had a question mark, my thoughts on it aside.

And the answer, supplied earlier, was, get this, something something Data Protection.

But full marks for trying to score a point.

Little CuChulainn

Going Forward wrote: »

It's not about knowing if someone is a rereg. I don't wish to know who is a rereg or who isn't.

But when anyone starts firing brickbats in your direction in their first few posts as a self confessed rereg wouldn't it be useful to know who's hiding behind the new nom de plume so that we can rule out sour grapes in their previous existence here as being the reason for their behaviour?

I have now been accused by them of "trying to out" their identity.

That is not the case.

I can assure you and them that a PM will suffice.

But why do you need to know anything about their identity? Why not just debate the post?

Going Forward

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But why do you need to know anything about their identity?

I thought I already explained that.

Their behaviour here has piqued my interest and I don't see how possibly hiding their past identity would serve future open debate.

I have asked if them if we've previously interacted and have received no response.

Am I to pretend we haven't if we actually have?

Wouldn't it be misleading if we had and they denied it?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Why not just debate the post?

Because it's very difficult to figure out what point they're making.

Annasopra

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But why do you need to know anything about their identity? Why not just debate the post?

What has any of this got to do with moderation?