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

Going Forward

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

I couldn't agree more.

Special Circumstances

Earlier the fact that mods of different political viewpoints were both against me making constructive criticism was proof that I was wrong.


If posters of different viewpoints now say the mods are wrong..... is this proof that the mods are wrong? Is it heresy to equate mere mortals with the celestial beings trying to keep the loonies on the path ?

For Reals

It's potential legal issues. I'd love to jump in on it myself.
Also, as regards other issues, sometimes repeated rhetoric thread after thread will derail a topic and censor any possibility of debate. For example a debate on the housing crisis that degenerates into a mud slinging match about Eoin O'Duffy and Blueshirts, when people want to talk about housing. It's degrees. Reference what might relate to the topic but try not to take a complete side track. It's not always a clear cut thing to call to be fair. It gets tiresome when topic after topic results in the same conversation that isn't news to anybody. That's not political bias.

gallag

The cull in the cafe continues, the chamber of echoes.

Boards.ie: Niamh

To be fair to the Café mods, they asked how to proceed with regard to this topic and went with what we advised.

If you think it unlikely that Boards would ever be contacted about this by someone's legal team, think again. The three Lever Arch files behind me full of solicitor's letters and threats to sue say otherwise and this is why we sensibly err on the side of caution.

Now that we have been made aware of the possibility in advance, we have no option but to err on the side of caution and say no discussion of the allegations. As per the guidelines outlined at the start of the new thread yesterday and when it reopened today, you are free to discuss the fact that there was a Prime Time report and what the likely results or ramifications of that might be, etc. but discussing the veracity of the allegations is off-limits for now.

Apologies if this feels like the discussion is being stunted in some way, no doubt in the future we will know more of the truth of it and be able to discuss it more freely. Until then, I'd appreciate people posting within the parameters given rather than ruining it for everyone by having threads to be closed. Thanks.

Going Forward

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Earlier the fact that mods of different political viewpoints were both against me making constructive criticism was proof that I was wrong.


If posters of different viewpoints now say the mods are wrong..... is this proof that the mods are wrong? Is it heresy to equate mere mortals with the celestial beings trying to keep the loonies on the path ?

It's not just about mods having different viewpoints it's about making misleading and disingenuous claims:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102575999&postcount=597

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

It's not just about mods having different viewpoints it's about making misleading and disingenuous claims:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102575999&postcount=597

Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

Just roll with it. Resistance is futile.

Stheno

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

Just roll with it. Resistance is futile.

Just what is your problem? The fact that moderation is in place full stop? There are plenty of examples in DRP and Prison of mod decisions being overturned

Special Circumstances

Why so serious?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Just what is your problem? The fact that moderation is in place full stop? There are plenty of examples in DRP and Prison of mod decisions being overturned

What does that even mean?

They were overturned because they were wrong to begin with.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

What does that even mean?

They were overturned because they were wrong to begin with.

Which to me says the system works, if mods make incorrect decisions there is a mechanism to overturn them.

Kinda contradicts Special Cirumstances saying that there is no point in appealing etc

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Which to me says the system works, if mods make incorrect decisions there is a mechanism to overturn them.

Kinda contradicts Special Cirumstances saying that there is no point in appealing etc

He didn't mention appealing.

What I picked from it is that there's a pecking order.

And there's favourites.

He'll/she'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Special Circumstances

Stheno wrote: »

Which to me says the system works, if mods make incorrect decisions there is a mechanism to overturn them.

Kinda contradicts Special Cirumstances saying that there is no point in appealing etc

If a man had been sanctioned for the perfectly valid advice of peeing on a frozen car lock as an option, maybe not a first option, but an option.


If another man had not been sanctioned for suggesting peeing in a washer bottle if you were stuck with dirty windows.


Which man would have been treated inconsistently?

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

He didn't mention appealing.

What I picked from it is that there's a pecking order.

And there's favourites.

He'll/she'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm on a mission from God.

Special Circumstances

Stheno wrote: »

Which to me says the system works, if mods make incorrect decisions there is a mechanism to overturn them.

Kinda contradicts Special Cirumstances saying that there is no point in appealing etc

If a man had repeatedly misrepresented another man's post. If the error had been repeatedly pointed out to him but he consistently picked one sentence from a two sentence post and said "that's all you said".

If another man was sanctioned for the quite sensible suggestion that the first man's written comprehension skills were below average or he was being disingenuous.


Would "who's wrong" depend on which side of the wagon circler they were on?

Special Circumstances

Stheno wrote: »

Which to me says the system works, if mods make incorrect decisions there is a mechanism to overturn them.

Kinda contradicts Special Cirumstances saying that there is no point in appealing etc

If a man asked a question. Opened an actual thread about it.

If another man, not being an industry expert himself, responded by accurately quoting a third man's (who was an industry expert) response to a similar question from an existing thread... which man should be sanctioned?

Special Circumstances

Stheno wrote: »

Which to me says the system works, if mods make incorrect decisions there is a mechanism to overturn them.

Kinda contradicts Special Cirumstances saying that there is no point in appealing etc

If a man, seeing that another man was taking a deliberately contrary position just to wind people up, then juxtaposed that man's position with another one of his posts from the previous day to illustrate the sort of wum he was.... and by doing so avoided the thread being derailed by some people wasting their time with a wum... who would be punished.

The person accurately quoting a recent position put forward by somebody else.... or the person trying wind people up?


Would it depend on which side of the wagon circler they were?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Just what is your problem? The fact that moderation is in place full stop? There are plenty of examples in DRP and Prison of mod decisions being overturned

Do you think it would make a difference if mods were paid instead of being "volunteers"?

There seems to be an awful lot of whinging about being a mod in the last few days.

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

Do you think it would make a difference if mods were paid instead of being "volunteers"?

There seems to be an awful lot of whinging about being a mod in the last few days.

I guess there would be some expectation of being professional in their interactions and consistent in their decisions.

Another solution would be to abandon mobile if they can't support it or make mod stuff transparent and obvious and sensible on it.

Mobile is only a fad anyway. If they keep modslapping the sh1t out of people pointing out the anonymous and opaque way that mod decisions come across on mobile they won't be long moving people back to good old crt workstations.

Going Forward

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I guess there would be some expectation of being professional in their interactions and consistent in their decisions.

Another solution would be to abandon mobile if they can't support it or make mod stuff transparent and obvious and sensible on it.

Mobile is only a fad anyway. If they keep modslapping the sh1t out of people pointing out the anonymous and opaque way that mod decisions come across on mobile they won't be long moving people back to good old crt workstations.

The format just doesn't lend itself to mobile without some sort of compromise. It is a fad.

But to the question of being a professional mod, the real question is, who would pay for it?

More commercial talk to forums, more ads, a fee of some sort.

Still it would be interesting if mods came back and said the whinging wouldn't stop even if they were being paid to do what they're doing.

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

There seems to be an awful lot of whinging about being a mod in the last few days.

I never post in Politics Café but when I see posters continually whinging about moderation like you have done over the last few days I sometimes wonder why we bother

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

I never post in Politics Café but when I see posters continually whinging about moderation like you have done over the last few days I sometimes wonder why we bother

Well why do you bother if it's such a burden? Would you find it easier if you weren't a volunteer, but paid for your services here?

If you look at my posts here you'll find I've been asking questions to try to clarify how things work around here.

And the questions seem to be hard to answer at times, theres been lots of misunderstandings, and deliberate evasion is apparent in the reluctant replies.

But continue to misrepresent me if you wish.

Special Circumstances

We should have some kinda league table for the oddest, most tenuous, most obviously inconsistent mod justification for a sanction.

Darkpagandeaths recent sanction for "continually avoiding a question" must surely be the least consistent and most ironic "justification" ever.... continually avoiding a question "deflect deflect deny" is first resort for many of the sycophants within the wagon circle.

Maybe we should be helping the mods by pointing out more instances of this heinous crime.

Tom Dunne

Enough