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

Alf Stewart.

Going Forward wrote: »

When was the last time someone "actively participating" in a thread was made a moderator?

**trying to be honest here**

Another forum I am active in is "food" (I like to cook, and love me grub)

Less than a week ago "Shenshen" was made a mod in the forum. She's a prolific and helpful poster there.

Makes sense.

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

I know in the past I've chosen to close threads as I had no other mods around to action them, and closing them has led to criticism but has also led to threads not escalating.

It can be a lose lose situation.

Well as a poster with more than ten years posting under my belt, the term "closed for mod review"' finally makes sense.

Going Forward

Is there some weird reluctance to say it happened last week?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102477146&postcount=1

I was wondering if theres a way of telling when someone was appointed a mod.

The mod tag also appears on peoples historic posts made well prior to them being modded.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Well as a poster with more than ten years posting under my belt, the term "closed for mod review"' finally makes sense.

Well to be very blunt here Alf, and I hope you appreciate it, if I close a thread that I'm involved in saying "closed for mod review", it means I think I'm too invested in the thread to be comfortable taking mod actions on the thread, and I'm closing it so it doesn't escalate, and neither side get to promote their view, and I can ask the other mods to review it.

If it's a thread I'm not involved in, and I do the same, it's due to my not being too familiar with perhaps posters who have specific views, or a topic I'm not familiar with, so I close it rather than let it escalate.

Does that make sense?

Going Forward wrote: »

Is there some weird reluctance to say it happened last week?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102477146&postcount=1

I was wondering if theres a way of telling when someone was appointed a mod.

The mod tag also appears on peoples historic posts made well prior to them being modded.

I thought you meant before last week, I was appointed in forums I was active in.

If I'm being very blunt here, are you asking if there was a time when a mod was appointed when they had a clear bias/opinon in relation to the discussions that happened in the relevant forum they were appointed to?

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

Is there some weird reluctance to say it happened last week?

No - it's quite clear from that post which is stickied in the forum

Going Forward wrote: »

I was wondering if theres a way of telling when someone was appointed a mod.

The mod tag also appears on peoples historic posts made well prior to them being modded.

No idea what you are getting at, but it's quite common for there to be welcome threads like the one you quoted

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

I thought you meant before last week, I was appointed in forums I was active in.

If I'm being very blunt here, are you asking if there was a time when a mod was appointed when they had a clear bias/opinon in relation to the discussions that happened in the relevant forum they were appointed to?

Why on earth would you think I meant "before last week"?

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

No - it's quite clear from that post which is stickied in the forum


No idea what you are getting at, but it's quite common for there to be welcome threads like the one you quoted

OK lads, leave it so, I get the message!!!

-I didn't ask how common it was for there to be welcome threads or excluding last week!!

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

Why on earth would you think I meant "before last week"?

Well because usually new mods (who are not already mods) are appointed based on their input to forums.

If you have a positive record of posting in a forum and they need a new mod, that's how they ask them.

I got a pm out of the blue asking me to be a mod in work and jobs due to my activity there.

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

OK lads, leave it so, I get the message!!!

-I didn't ask how common it was for there to be welcome threads or excluding last week!!

I was answering your question. What is the problem?

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

I was answering your question. What is the problem?

No you didn't.

I asked if there was a way to determine when someone was made a mod.

There's a load of beating around bush.

In plain English are you saying that the only way to know when someone was made a mod is to do a search for an announcement of it??

With respect, ye're both being coming across as being obtuse and reluctant to answering a fairly striaghtforward question.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Well because usually new mods (who are not already mods) are appointed based on their input to forums.

If you have a positive record of posting in a forum and they need a new mod, that's how they ask them.

I got a pm out of the blue asking me to be a mod in work and jobs due to my activity there.

Well can you answer my original question then?

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

Well can you answer my original question then?

Yes myself, For reals, in respect of the cafe and Lcc and rbannon

Do you have a problem with that or would you like to know how mods are selected?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Yes myself, For reals, in respect of the cafe and Lcc and rbannon

Do you have a problem with that or would you like to know how mods are selected?

No, but how does someone know that a post was made by a mod before they were made a mod?

Is their a list of mods somewhere with their modding dates on it.

Just out of curiosity?

Not being specific to the new mods.

Zaph

Going Forward wrote: »

No, but how does someone know that a post was made by a mod before they were made a mod?

Is their a list of mods somewhere with their modding dates on it.

Just out of curiosity?

Not being specific to the new mods.

No there isn't. Short of going through the admin forum to ascertain when a particular mod was approved or looking at a welcome thread in a forum we don't have any easy way of knowing when a particular mod was approved. The question has never arisen before to the best of my knowledge tbh.

Going Forward

Zaph wrote: »

No there isn't. Short of going through the admin forum to ascertain when a particular mod was approved or looking at a welcome thread in a forum we don't have any easy way of knowing when a particular mod was approved. The question has never arisen before to the best of my knowledge tbh.

And theres no way of knowing when someone was demodded either?

dudara

Going Forward wrote: »

No, but how does someone know that a post was made by a mod before they were made a mod?

Is their a list of mods somewhere with their modding dates on it.

Just out of curiosity?

Not being specific to the new mods.

It's probably possible at the database level to determine this information.

However, we only have the application level available to us, and that information is not available there. As Zaph said, our only record is conversations in the Admin forum and the other various threads we have to discuss mod movements.

Ditto for the de-mod question

Little CuChulainn

I hope last nights Prime Time shows people why I erred on the side of caution with the thread. Everyone was so sure that the commissioner had either made up an allegation or was referring to an incident of lost evidence. Both were completely wrong and the situation was much more complex and serious involving multiple departments and allegations of child abuse. Dáil privilege presents a real issue to reporters and discussion boards in that there is effectively no accountability for the person who makes the remarks but there is for people who publish anything about them.

Alf Stewart.

I just had my post removed from a thread in the cafe concerning the McCabe case.

This is despite me in no way shape or form discussing the contents of the allegation , or what was said.

I think your being just a little bit over cautious lads

Little CuChulainn

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I just had my post removed from a thread in the cafe concerning the McCabe case.

This is despite me in no way shape or form discussing the contents of the allegation , or what was said.

I think your being just a little bit over cautious lads

It was deleted because it belongs in the other thread when it is reopened. The thread you posted in was about the relationship between the Gardaí and the media.

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I hope last nights Prime Time shows people why I erred on the side of caution with the thread. Everyone was so sure that the commissioner had either made up an allegation or was referring to an incident of lost evidence. Both were completely wrong and the situation was much more complex and serious involving multiple departments and allegations of child abuse. Dáil privilege presents a real issue to reporters and discussion boards in that there is effectively no accountability for the person who makes the remarks but there is for people who publish anything about them.

I wouldnt say you erred at all, tread on the side of caution would be more apt.

As i said yesterday i may be wrong but i would in no way be the cause of litigation against boards. If you had any idea how many of my own posts i think the better of and delete before i click reply you would see the care i take on anything sensitive. And as i noted, ifwhen i erred it would be on the side of a good name and i certainly would and did do that without smearing anyone elses.

Alf Stewart.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It was deleted because it belongs in the other thread when it is reopened. The thread you posted in was about the relationship between the Gardaí and the media.

So it was off topic (marginally) hardly needed to be deleted.

For clarity, i posted about something pat Kenny commented on, and that McCabe deserved a great deal of empathy should any of the mess prove true.

Oh nos! Maybe newstalk will get into bother too?

Little CuChulainn

Satriale wrote: »

I wouldnt say you erred at all, tread on the side of caution would be more apt.

As i said yesterday i may be wrong but i would in no way be the cause of litigation against boards. If you had any idea how many of my own posts i think the better of and delete before i click reply you would see the care i take on anything sensitive. And as i noted, ifwhen i erred it would be on the side of a good name and i certainly would and did do that without smearing anyone elses.

Unfortunately our defamation laws are both overly strict and relatively new. I don't think people would be making false claims on purpose. But when it comes to allegations of this nature I think caution is for the best.

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

So it was off topic (marginally) hardly needed to be deleted.

For clarity, i posted about something pat Kenny commented on, and that McCabe designed a great deal of empathy should any of the mess prove true.

Oh nos! Maybe newstalk will get into bother too?

It was completely off topic and it belonged in the other thread. Normally that might not require a deletion but since the other thread was locked for legal advice it does this time.

And maybe Newstalk will get in trouble. Has everyone forgotten that RTE were sued for their allegations against a priest. Something being reported in another outlet does not make it true or does not give you a defence to defamation.

Going Forward

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Unfortunately our defamation laws are both overly strict and relatively new. I don't think people would be making false claims on purpose. But when it comes to allegations of this nature I think caution is for the best.



It was completely off topic and it belonged in the other thread. Normally that might not require a deletion but since the other thread was locked for legal advice it does this time.

And maybe Newstalk will get in trouble. Has everyone forgotten that RTE were sued for their allegations against a priest. Something being reported in another outlet does not make it true or does not give you a defence to defamation.

RTE was sued because the allegations came from RTE.

Nobody else in the media was sued for having reported that RTE made the allegations IIRC?

Little CuChulainn

Going Forward wrote: »

RTE was sued because the allegations came from RTE.

Nobody else in the media was sued for having reported that RTE made the allegations IIRC?

The others all came to an agreement

Corrections will also be published in the Connaught Tribune, The Irish Times, Irish Independent and Irish Examiner.

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The others all came to an agreement

Corrections published, which is right and proper, they fairly reported on RTEs story and published corrections when it was found to be untrue, as any decent publication would. I dont think they were sued.

Going Forward

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The others all came to an agreement

No, the others just published a correction according to that report.

RTE came to an agreement to pay damages as they were responsible for the origin of the story that the others relayed.

Can you show the others were sued?

That is what you are implying isn't it?

Alf Stewart.

Basically we can't discuss what's being discussed on every Goddam radio station, news paper and every other media outlet this morning, because just because.

Shutters are down on this hot potato alright.

Dyr

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I hope last nights Prime Time shows people why I erred on the side of caution with the thread. Everyone was so sure that the commissioner had either made up an allegation or was referring to an incident of lost evidence. Both were completely wrong and the situation was much more complex and serious involving multiple departments and allegations of child abuse. Dáil privilege presents a real issue to reporters and discussion boards in that there is effectively no accountability for the person who makes the remarks but there is for people who publish anything about them.

I wasn't sure of any such thing, I think you're off into the realms of high speculation.

You should step away from this now at this stage.

Going Forward

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Basically we can't discuss what's being discussed on every Goddam radio station, news paper and every other media outlet this morning, because just because.

Shutters are down on this hot potato alright.

Looks like it.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt though.

LCC might come back with details of the others being succesfully sued seeing as he brought it up.

My secretary is out at the moment and I can't work this mobile search thing too well.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Basically we can't discuss what's being discussed on every Goddam radio station, news paper and every other media outlet this morning, because just because.

Shutters are down on this hot potato alright.

I find myself in agreement with you on this one. I think this issue should be allowed to be discussed, there are enough elements that would allow it. There are double standards on this one. Here is a post from the main politics forum that wouldn't be allowed on the Cafe.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102575211&postcount=62

That post appears defamatory of Commissioner Callinan, yet it is uncensored. There is a lot that can be discussed without going down that direction.

Then again, I have been beating this drum for a while. PSNI reports, Micheal Martin, Irish Independent etc. all talk about current links between SF and the IRA but you can't introduce that to a current thread about the IRA without being carded. Strangely, many of those who like to censor my views on the IRA are up in arms over their views being censored on the gardai. Ironic, very ironic.