Smods & Cmods... Too much work?

amp

LiouVille wrote:

It says it right below my name. And you really want to get into this with me again Amp, for the 20th time.

Get into what exactly?

Boston

Playing stupid, how fitting.

1

I'm locking this thread.

amp

LiouVille wrote:

Playing stupid, how fitting.

Not playing anything. Once again I have no idea what your talking about.

Talliesin

amp wrote:

I never found it funny. I still don't.

I didn't know that. In a forum in which people post deliberate absurdities, someone said they were selling something (iirc, they said they were selling "boobies" from a stall). Someone else pointed out they could be banned for breaking the Boards policy against trading outside of the appropriate boards - clearly a joke - and I did so.

Really, I can see how you could not find it funny (I don't think I've ever found your jokes particularly funny, and I've noticed before that you haven't seen the humour in some of my more deadpan jokes, so clearly we just don't have similar senses of humour) but how could you not get that it was a joke?

Anyway, it raised plenty of LOLs so some people did at least.

The Sweeper

Well to be honest, and if I were to post in way that I think would be representative of most of the people on boards.ie, I really do honestly feel that when it comes to whether or not the moderators at different levels should have moderating powers to moderate the content that needs moderating, they should moderate the moderatable content that is pertinent to being moderated by their level of moderation. Everything should be done in moderation, including how the moderators moderate the moderateable. Then on the subject of aptitude of the moderation of Talliesin, Amp, WWMan, LiouVille and/or Boston, Thaed and Baz_H and the correct or incorrect form of how to being to start to commence the onset of the preparation for what should be done with SMods, CMods, Mods, Admins and the rose-scented bootlace tied around my left ankle,






















...I'll go post somewhere else.

amp

Talliesin wrote:

I didn't know that. In a forum in which people post deliberate absurdities, someone said they were selling something (iirc, they said they were selling "boobies" from a stall). Someone else pointed out they could be banned for breaking the Boards policy against trading outside of the appropriate boards - clearly a joke - and I did so.

Really, I can see how you could not find it funny (I don't think I've ever found your jokes particularly funny, and I've noticed before that you haven't seen the humour in some of my more deadpan jokes, so clearly we just don't have similar senses of humour) but how could you not get that it was a joke?

Anyway, it raised plenty of LOLs so some people did at least.

I've expanded my original post. In that case the joke was at Trishw78's expense and she didn't seem to find it funny. If you had posted that you had banned her and hadn't, then I wouldn't have done anything and probably have lol'd.

If your idea of humour is to pick on someone who clearly doesn't deserve it is funny then maybe you should start hitting random people on the street while your mates chortle away. Because that's obviously the height of comedy.

Talliesin

amp wrote:

I've expanded my original post. In that case the joke was at Trishw78's expense and she didn't seem to find it funny. If you had posted that you had banned her and hadn't, then I wouldn't have done anything and probably have lol'd.

She seemed to find it funny from the response to the PM I sent her, which was partly to make sure that she hadn't been genuinely upset by it.

Seriously, I messed up in not realising that you were seriously aggrieved, but I took measures to make sure Trishw wasn't. If her response had been "aw, come on, that isn't fair" rather than full of smilies I would have unbanned her immediately.

Boston

amp wrote:

I've expanded my original post. In that case the joke was at Trishw78's expense and she didn't seem to find it funny. If you had posted that you had banned her and hadn't, then I wouldn't have done anything and probably have lol'd.

If your idea of humour is to pick on someone who clearly doesn't deserve it is funny then maybe you should start hitting random people on the street while your mates chortle away. Because that's obviously the height of comedy.

You're posts would carry more weight if you wheren't such a hypocrite. You have bullied people, you have banned people merely because you didn't like them, you have put people down that didn't deserve it. Now what ever **** you spout about being a reformed character, those are facts.

Ps before you turn this around on me, I'm not pretending I'm perfect, but I was a good mod.

Crash

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Well to be honest, and if I were to post in way that I think would be representative of most of the people on boards.ie, I really do honestly feel that when it comes to whether or not the moderators at different levels should have moderating powers to moderate the content that needs moderating, they should moderate the moderatable content that is pertinent to being moderated by their level of moderation. Everything should be done in moderation, including how the moderators moderate the moderateable. Then on the subject of aptitude of the moderation of Talliesin, Amp, WWMan, LiouVille and/or Boston, Thaed and Baz_H and the correct or incorrect form of how to being to start to commence the onset of the preparation for what should be done with SMods, CMods, Mods, Admins and the rose-scented bootlace tied around my left ankle,






















...I'll go post somewhere else.

Majd that REALLY hurt my head.

Boston

Talliesin wrote:

She seemed to find it funny from the response to the PM I sent her, which was partly to make sure that she hadn't been genuinely upset by it.

Don't worry John, Adam has this thing about defending the honor of women on boards. It's charming and creepy in equal measure.

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

She seemed to find it funny from the response to the PM I sent her, which was partly to make sure that she hadn't been genuinely upset by it.

Seriously, I messed up in not realising that you were seriously aggrieved, but I took measures to make sure Trishw wasn't. If her response had been "aw, come on, that isn't fair" rather than full of smilies I would have unbanned her immediately.

the fact that you find it funny, does not diminish the fact that abused your smod powers, and have done it in several other situations.

humour is not an influencing factor. nor is it a defence against poor judgment.

i think the current thread onthe moderator forum is a point in case where you have banned someone from an entire catagory because you didnt like one of his posts in the forums forum!

delly

In fairness, mods debating each other about there roles, is nearly coming as common as regular users moaning about a mod ban etc.

When a regular user gets a ban they post in feedback hoping to get some other mod to agree with there point, a bit like a child getting grounded by mother and then hoping father will let him out. It never happens.

Whereas mods debating there roles with each other is like mother and father arguing while leaving the bedroom door open, which can only lead to confused children. The least ye can do is close the door and leave us with the impression that everything is under control.

Just by 2 cents tbh.

amp

LiouVille wrote:

You're posts would carry more weight if you wheren't such a hypocrite. You have bullied people, you have banned people merely because you didn't like them, you have put people down that didn't deserve it. Now what ever **** you spout about being a reformed character, those are facts.

Ps before you turn this around on me, I'm not pretending I'm perfect, but I was a good mod.

Well I have to turn this around on you. You've been banned from countless forums, you've had your moderatorship removed. You don't seem to be getting into as much trouble as you used to. Have you got exclusive rights to being reformed? Are you the only person on the planet that can learn from their mistakes?

I also note that you seem to be infering that I was only defending trishw78 because she's female. That's just plain bullshit, but not surprising given you think you're my arch nemisis or something.

I could respond in kind by saying you're only defending a fellow bi-sexual but I'm simply not that retarded.

Boston

amp wrote:

you've had your moderatorship removed.

Lies, you know thats not what happened. Theres as much truth in you only being a mod cause of the people you know.

I also note that you seem to be infering that I was only defending trishw78 because she's female. That's just plain bullshit, but not surprising given you think you're my arch nemisis or something.

Why are you defending someone about something, they clearly couldn't give a bollix about.

I could respond in kind by saying you're only defending a fellow bi-sexual but I'm simply not that retarded.

Yea, cause you'd never be that retarded or hypocritical, opps... I suppose that was friendly banter.

WhiteWashMan

delly wrote:

In fairness, mods debating each other about there roles, is nearly coming as common as regular users moaning about a mod ban etc.

When a regular user gets a ban they post in feedback hoping to get some other mod to agree with there point, a bit like a child getting grounded by mother and then hoping father will let him out. It never happens.

Whereas mods debating there roles with each other is like mother and father arguing while leaving the bedroom door open, which can only lead to confused children. The least ye can do is close the door and leave us with the impression that everything is under control.

Just by 2 cents tbh.

an interesting analogy indeed, but what do you think with regards the topic?

amp

LiouVille wrote:

Lies, you know thats not what happened. Theres as much truth in you only being a mod cause of the people you know.

Well I am a mod because of people I know. They must know me as a good moderator, given that I moderate a section of boards. They must know that I'll do a good job. Unless your infering that all 400 mods are close personal friends of the admins.

So given that you were a moderator and now are not, can you tell us why?

Why are you defending someone about something, they clearly couldn't give a bollix about.

Why are you so concerned? In fact what has any of this got to do with you? Other than your obsession with arguing with me?

Yea, cause you'd never be that retarded or hypocritical, opps... I suppose that was friendly banter.

Accusing me of defending the banning of someone just because they're female is nothing to do with calling someone a ****. And if you think I'm anti-alternative sexuality then you really are retarded (no offence to retards!)

Talliesin

WhiteWashMan wrote:

humour is not an influencing factor. nor is it a defence against poor judgment.

Degree of harm is an influencing factor. I did something I could do that would be harmful if I just went about doing it randomly. I took measures to make sure that there was no harm done by PMing Trishw twice to make sure that she was in on the joke and okay with it. As such I had her implied consent and there was no damage done.
It's no different to Gordon abusing his mod powers to allow Amp to post in the prison forum.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i think the current thread onthe moderator forum is a point in case where you have banned someone from an entire catagory because you didnt like one of his posts in the forums forum!

I don't. I made a judgement call on whether we allow someone who has made bigotted comments on two forums (the forums forum and the islam forum) to post in the religious forums. The reason for having a CMod for the religious forums (which is already covered by the CModship of Soc) is because of the frequent (overstated in my experience, but we still addressed them) fears that have arisen frequently (nearly every time a new religious forum has been created) of rampant religious bigottry. The line of where disagreement ends and bigotry beings, and of how much we accept it is not an easy one to make (I generally try to think "does it seem reasonable for someone who thinks like this to commit an act of violence due to this viewpoint") maybe I got it wrong, maybe I didn't, I don't think there's any absolute measure by which that can be ascertained.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

an interesting analogy indeed, but what do you think with regards the topic?

Which topic, we've covered a handful at this stage, again a reason why perhaps the admins should change the policy on this forum.

amp

Talliesin wrote:

Degree of harm is an influencing factor. I did something I could do that would be harmful if I just went about doing it randomly. I took measures to make sure that there was no harm done by PMing Trishw twice to make sure that she was in on the joke and okay with it.As such I had her implied consent and there was no damage done.

Oh you pm'd her before you banned her? Well then, I obviously didn't have the whole picture. If your so into pm'ing howabout letting me know beforehand too? That way we can avoid stupid drama in the future.

It's no different to Gordon abusing his mod powers to allow Amp to post in the prison forum.

What? That's just plain wrong. Me flaming assholes that were too stupid to last on boards is nothing at all like banning a user for your and whoever elses amusement.

Talliesin

LiouVille. I'm addressing this at you rather than both you and amp because amp is the one I'm arguing with. At the same time I'm asking you publicly so there's no need to feel like you didn't get the last word.

Please don't put me in the position of dealing with personal abuse in the middle of a thread where I'm defending actions I've made as a moderator. Whatever way it goes it's not nice to happen in the middle of this, and your argument with amp seems to be escalating. So I'm asking that if you want to continue it could you please take it to the thunderdome forum?

amp

Talliesin wrote:

LiouVille. I'm addressing this at you rather than both you and amp because amp is the one I'm arguing with. At the same time I'm asking you publicly so there's no need to feel like you didn't get the last word.

Please don't put me in the position of dealing with personal abuse in the middle of a thread where I'm defending actions I've made as a moderator. Whatever way it goes it's not nice to happen in the middle of this, and your argument with amp seems to be escalating. So I'm asking that if you want to continue it could you please take it to the thunderdome forum?

Ah don't worry about that escalating. I think he's running out of stuff to make up about me. Either way I'm finished arguing with him.

Talliesin

amp wrote:

Oh you pm'd her before you banned her? Well then, I obviously didn't have the whole picture. If your so into pm'ing howabout letting me know beforehand too? That way we can avoid stupid drama in the future.

Agreed, I should have done this. It was a mistake of me not to.

I wasn't quite blatantly saying "THIS IS ALL JUST A JOKE. LOL!!!11!!!ONE! :):):)" and prefer not to, but yes I should have made you know that I had PMd her in such a manner as to make her know it was just being silly and wouldn't last and I should have PMd you again when her reply let me know she seemed okay with it.

amp wrote:

What? That's just plain wrong. Me flaming assholes that were too stupid to last on boards is nothing at all like banning a user for your and whoever elses amusement.

The important similarity is that while both are strictly abuses of smod powers, no harm is done. trishw was not seriously prevented from enjoying boards by being banned for a matter of minutes (I was actually about to unban her when I saw you'd done so). Similarly flaming people in prison (or at least the chronic cases, people should still be given the opportunity to make honest queries, explanations and/or apologies) does no harm either.

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

Which topic, we've covered a handful at this stage, again a reason why perhaps the admins should change the policy on this forum.

please insert random reply based on surealist statement above...

unless you feel that users should post because you feel that since weve discussed this to death, there couldnt possibly be another viewpoint that wouldnt be a valuable contibution?


what should the policy be changed to?

Talliesin wrote:

Degree of harm is an influencing factor. I did something I could do that would be harmful if I just went about doing it randomly. I took measures to make sure that there was no harm done by PMing Trishw twice to make sure that she was in on the joke and okay with it. As such I had her implied consent and there was no damage done.
It's no different to Gordon abusing his mod powers to allow Amp to post in the prison forum..

you still abused your power. jesus, stop skirting around the issue!

Talliesin wrote:

It's no different to Gordon abusing his mod powers to allow Amp to post in the prison forum.

its no different than gordon abusing his mod powers to ban people on the feedback forum for shíts and giggles.

Talliesin wrote:

I don't. I made a judgement call on whether we allow someone who has made bigotted comments on two forums (the forums forum and the islam forum) to post in the religious forums. The reason for having a CMod for the religious forums (which is already covered by the CModship of Soc) is because of the frequent (overstated in my experience, but we still addressed them) fears that have arisen frequently (nearly every time a new religious forum has been created) of rampant religious bigottry. The line of where disagreement ends and bigotry beings, and of how much we accept it is not an easy one to make (I generally try to think "does it seem reasonable for someone who thinks like this to commit an act of violence due to this viewpoint") maybe I got it wrong, maybe I didn't, I don't think there's any absolute measure by which that can be ascertained..

im sorry, so now you are the morality police on boards?
that would belike me going back to the links to voilence movies threads, and banning chrnobyl and pigman II for posting up saying they think im wrong!

also, do you feel that the mods of the various forums cannot make these decisions for themselves? surely if they have an issue in a forum, they ban them.

i dont see why you get involved and ban someone from an entirely different catagory than the one they are posting on. its not your call!

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

middle of a thread where I'm defending actions I've made as a moderator.

moderator or smod?

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

The important similarity is that while both are strictly abuses of smod powers, no harm is done..

ok, at last you admit it was an abuse of power. we have a start.
now, while you say no harm is done, thats actually not true.

the harm done from the ensuing perception was that you did wrong. that ***** way more than actual harm against one user.
the perception now is that youa re too heavy handed, you interfer with moderators, you lock threads where you dont need to based on a personal whim and that you ban people you just dont like.
thats the perception.
so tell me, has there been any harm done. well, to your reputation, yes there has.

Talliesin wrote:

Similarly flaming people in prison (or at least the chronic cases, people should still be given the opportunity to make honest queries, explanations and/or apologies) does no harm either.

sort of like in the forums or feedback forum?
but surely just a few minutes ago you asked why a user should bother posting on this topic, as we had discussed it all.

in getting confused here.

free speach for all, except when you dont want it?


perhaps you should just lock this thread? hey, ban me while youre at it!

amp

Talliesin wrote:

Agreed, I should have done this. It was a mistake of me not to.

I wasn't quite blatantly saying "THIS IS ALL JUST A JOKE. LOL!!!11!!!ONE! :):):)" and prefer not to, but yes I should have made you know that I had PMd her in such a manner as to make her know it was just being silly and wouldn't last and I should have PMd you again when her reply let me know she seemed okay with it.

No, you shouldn't have banned her at all. That's my point. Banning people for fun, even if they're ok with it, degrades the use of banning as a tool. It makes you look corrupt and because users tend to lump us all together increases their perception of all of us as corrupt power hungry **** who go round banning people for kicks. There's a lot of mods on boards doing a lot of work and what your doing degrades that.

The important similarity is that while both are strictly abuses of smod powers, no harm is done. trishw was not seriously prevented from enjoying boards by being banned for a matter of minutes (I was actually about to unban her when I saw you'd done so). Similarly flaming people in prison (or at least the chronic cases, people should still be given the opportunity to make honest queries, explanations and/or apologies) does no harm either.

So your only connection is that in your opinion there's little harm in both cases? That's like saying an orange is similar to a sponge because you can squeze both of them. A tenuous link at best. Maybe Gordon should have asked an Admin before he did it, but that's between him and the Admins, not I.

I would gladly give up my access to Prison if it meant you stopped banning people for fun.

P.s Boston is gay

amp

WhiteWashMan wrote:

its no different than gordon abusing his mod powers to ban people on the feedback forum for shíts and giggles.

Bollox, those people had a choice. They chose to post in that thread. They effectively said "please ban me from this forum".

WhiteWashMan

but it was a joke, so thats ok.

amp

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but it was a joke, so thats ok.

Didn't seem like a joke to me, which is why I didn't post there. Looked fairly straightforward, post there, get banned.

I think the only thing it proves is that there are more stupid people in Feedback than TCN because more people got banned in Gordons thread than the one in TCN which has been around a lot longer.

P.s Now that I think about it, the indignant posts of outrage resulting from it were quite funny.

parsi

mammy please make them stop.

There was I thinking that Boards is a serene swan and all this time under the waterline are people flapping away like mad.

This is a good thread. I think that over the last whileBoards has become a little less tolerant to those who oppose the majority views. Netwhizkid was an example of a guy who said something that others thought was stupid and he got the living daylights kicked out of him. Not only that when he was down it kept on coming and there were a few mods in that crowd dishing itout with the best of them.

FWIW (and I know its not worth much) I think that Mods should stay out of arguments in other fora - I think (idealistically) that the behaviour of mods should be seen as an example for the rest of us. Of course that's just the idealism talking [though if I cast my mind back nearly 20 years to when I was an admin on our college Conference system I don't know if we were any better..]. It's always easy to be the hurler on the ditch.