moderation abuse

dimko

Hello,


Original thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058140040


Moderator closed thread in the middle of me giving arguments to him/her.

Specifically, ' Uber don't make up the menus or the pricing. ' Without technical Ubers involvement - whole sale act would not be possible. So on technical and logical point moderator is wrong as person who responds.


He implied incorrectly that I said that Uber is restaurant - ' It is an ordering and delivery platform not a restaurant'. I never said it is restaurant, nor implied it.



He claims ' It also appears you failed to apply the discount code and are trying to blame someone else for your mistake.' - I did not, as I have EXPLICITLY stated, that discount code is applied, as I could see green icon/indicator that said discount is applied.

' This thread is not exposing any scam and is worthless. ' - so most of his comments I just clarified above are wrong. And yet my observably correct statements are called worthless and basically wrong.



I could argue more points and give more valid arguments, but this thread is wrong place for that.


I have PM'd moderator, asking to allow me to continue and counter argue his points, which he said I am wrong and basically banned me from PM him.(i dont remember giving any arguments in PM)

Now I don't think moderator acted in bad faith. Moderators get bad rap all the time.

I am civil person, and the whole point of forum is, as per defenition:
'a public meeting place for open discussion' - closing threads when someone is about to give you argument is opposite of open discussion.

Please if I am wrong - prove me wrong. Make fun of me. Don't drop ban hammer on me. I will learn if I am wrong.

You put iron ball in my mouth - you prove I was right.

Nody

Heya dimko, I'm a CMod for the forum in question and I can only fully support the mod here after reading the thread. You're posting aggressively, you're shown that your statements are at best incorrect and quite frankly you are making up conspiracy theories how uber eats are trying to cheat customers based on what restaurants state are the order requirements. You don't want to discuss an issue, you want to soap box your opinion and that's what blogs are for, not a discussion forum. If the moderator had not locked your thread we'd not be discussing this in the feedback forum but rather the DRP forum most likely.

dimko

Nody wrote: »

Heya dimko, I'm a CMod for the forum in question and I can only fully support the mod here after reading the thread. You're posting aggressively, you're shown that your statements are at best incorrect and quite frankly you are making up conspiracy theories how uber eats are trying to cheat customers based on what restaurants state are the order requirements. You don't want to discuss an issue, you want to soap box your opinion and that's what blogs are for, not a discussion forum. If the moderator had not locked your thread we'd not be discussing this in the feedback forum but rather the DRP forum most likely.

'You're posting aggressively' - I am. I do to people who are aggressive with me. I don't see it as problem, as such. Was I rude? No. Was I abrasive? May be. Was I rude? No.

'you're shown that your statements are at best incorrect' - as stated at begining of thread - prove me wrong. Which you failed to do so far. in that sense you are shutting me down from providing my arguments to things you disagree with.

'frankly you are making up conspiracy theories how uber eats are trying to cheat customers ' - is it conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But giant companies were caught before on rounding numbers and minor 'errors' many of them, many times, on purpose, which means my statement is NOT baseless.


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=big+company+caught+overcharging+customers+on+purpose&t=ffab&ia=web




'You don't want to discuss an issue, you want to soap box your opinion and that's what blogs are for, not a discussion forum.'
Not only you make assumptions - basically you claim you can read my mind, as you state what I do and do not want, when I did NOT explicitly state it.
Please look at thread, I asked a question in thread 'Uber Eats is scam? ' - i want to be proven wrong, because If I am not - I won't have business with potentially very useful partner. I have principles. But so far all that happens - I get shot down asking questions and giving arguments.



'If the moderator had not locked your thread we'd not be discussing this in the feedback forum but rather the DRP forum most likely.' - please be advised, not every one is familiar with specialized lingo/acronyms which moderators are using, said with friendly intentions.(used to be quality assurance for tech/cust support)

Nody

dimko wrote: »

'If the moderator had not locked your thread we'd not be discussing this in the feedback forum but rather the DRP forum most likely.' - please be advised, not every one is familiar with specialized lingo/acronyms which moderators are using, said with friendly intentions.(used to be quality assurance for tech/cust support)

You'd have received the link to it if it became relevant; DRP forum. It's the forum to dispute cards or forum bans given by forum moderators which was the likely outcome if that thread had continued.

dimko

Nody wrote: »

You'd have received the link to it if it became relevant; DRP forum. It's the forum to dispute cards or forum bans given by forum moderators which was the likely outcome if that thread had continued.

Well, I would not mind having thread reopened. I still have my question, what other think.
I would of course challenge other people opinion if I did see flow in logic.


Now, has someone so far complained on thread? If only moderator did it - than perhaps it's opinion of a person, which goes against better judgement of moderator.

Beasty

This is not site-wide feedback so moved to Help Desk

OP, please also note you need to have made at least 100 posts on the site before being able to post in the Feedback forum

dimko

Beasty wrote: »

This is not site-wide feedback so moved to Help Desk

OP, please also note you need to have made at least 100 posts on the site before being able to post in the Feedback forum

This thread is not intention but means to intention. Can original thread be unsuspended please?

Beasty

dimko wrote: »

This thread is not intention but means to intention. Can original thread be unsuspended please?

You have received comment from a Category Mod. I have looked at the thread and support its closure, so no it will not be re-opened

dimko

Beasty wrote: »

You have received comment from a Category Mod. I have looked at the thread and support its closure, so no it will not be re-opened

So none of my arguments/points were commented on. So basically thread was closed based purely on opinions, which I either proven to be wrong or did not have a chance to prove to be wrong?

Modderator uber alles?

Beasty

You were claiming a scam by a named organisation. The moderators thought differently, and are in a position to make such a judgement. They moderated accordingly

dimko

Beasty wrote: »

You were claiming a scam by a named organization. The moderators thought differently, and are in a position to make such a judgement. They moderated accordingly

I was NOT claiming scam. I was asking other people opinion if it is and I have provided arguments to support my point. OR I was prevented from providing such arguments by thread being closed. Also I was given WRONG arguments against my hypothesis.

Out of 3 points one was successfully counter argued on rather shaky ground. But as long as one or two remains - my point is still valid.


' The moderators thought differently, and are in a position to make such a judgement.' - so let me get this straight, 'we think differently, therefore your arguments and points are null and void, even though we fail to provide counter argument, while you have provided arguments in your support'. Is this how boards.ie is operate? Because this is how I see it. I give arguments, Mod fails to counter argue, closes threat because he THINKS(possibly incorrectly) - I am wrong, without proving it or without allowing me proving him/her wrong.

Beasty

This is a private site. There is no requirement of "proof" over any moderator decision. There is a formal arbitration process for cards and bans, but decisions like the one discussed here are down to moderator discretion