Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mod control of Tubridy payment Thread

Options
1246

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,045 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I'd argue that Tubridy’s tribute positing himself as a friend of Sinéad when his reputation is in tatters could be viewed as an attempt to rehabilitate his image. A post about Sinéad would fit in with that conversation.

    I don't understand the insistence of keeping threads on topic, it doesn't happen in normal conversation which flows from one topic to the next and back again. I always imagine someone standing up in middle of a conversation and screaming "WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOOTBALL DON'T MENTION RUGBY!" when I see this.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    If someone had raised it in a few weeks time I would not have seen an issue. However nothing has been released about cause of death. No funeral has taken place. Friends and family may read stuff here. In my own view we are not yet at a stage where it should become part of a discussion about a completely different individual. There are plenty of things that continue to be discussed in that thread without any reference to her death



  • Posts: 2,725 [Deleted User]


    It was one of over 40 tributes in the Times supplement. It was used as petrol to keep the outrage bonfire going for the last few stragglers. It was using O’Connor’s death for personal advantage ironically enough. To any causal reader or contributor you could see how nasty and unhinged it was. Like message boards aren’t exactly known for nuance and measured debate, but a lot of those comments went past any sort of acceptable line.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    All I've taken from this thread is that we can all now call other Boards users lying scumbags and maybe get a warning or, at a push, a threadban. Fun times ahead for Boards.ie!



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,480 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Another forum I used to post on had a definition for Threadshitting:

    Threadshitting is belittling the topic or the people discussing it. It typically takes the form of a dismissive comment, like “Who cares?” or “This is stupid!” or similar. The implication of the threadshitter is that discussion of such a topic is beneath them, and should be beneath everybody else. If you really do think that a discussion is inane or pointless, the appropriate thing to do is to not participate in it.

    If the mods want to improve the quality of the Tubridy thread then they could do worse than address the poster who has seemingly made it his mission to piss all over other people trying to discuss a topic. Just like he has done many, many times before.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,213 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Well then, with respect Beasty - maybe you should amend post #88 on this thread and/or elsewhere - to advise that there shall be NO discussion at all of Mr.Tubridy's views on the late Sinead O'Connor. That his article in the IT should be completely disregarded here and not for public discourse on boards.

    That would be clearer and more honest?

    I note that #94 above continues to raise the topic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,085 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    So there is nowhere at this time on Boards that it can be commented on that Ryan Tubridy - off the air because of the payments scandal - was chosen by a major national newspaper to write an article about someone's passing? An article in which they make mention of their recent 'issues'?

    If Tubridy himself won't wait a few weeks to start bringing up such points - and he directly referenced his recent issues - it seems strange to me to expect that standard on social media.

    And how this might relate to a media 'rehabilitation' campaign to put him back in spotlight in a more favourable light?

    And how posters feel uneasy about that.


    Bearing in mind e.g. the Christy Dignam RIP thread discussed unease at Dave Fanning's comments. So no comment would be allowed on Boards for weeks of such comments, even though it is being discussed in other media outlets?

    And the Sinead O'Connor RIP thread discussed unease at Bob Geldof's comments and concerns raised by Lily Allen about 'spineless' tributes.

    If there is some set rule about only allowing condolences \ memories and not discussing anything else in the short term after a death, I don't see much evidence of it.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,058 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    The tubridy thread was being used as a vehicle by certain actors to air grievances unrelated and preexisting to the payments issue and hijacked for that purpose.


    Beasty's moderation was balanced imo.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,402 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    DRP is mostly a circling of the wagons sham, especially when it comes to a dispute involving an admin.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,286 ✭✭✭evolvingtipperary101




  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 14,032 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    It was edited with a Bold Moderator warning at the bottom to all posters, as would often happen if a thread is being derailed. Posters generally only read the OP and can miss moderator warnings further down in the thread.

    Edit: Apologies: I misread - I thought the comments by Beasty at the bottom were by Beasty today. I notice they were originally included by the OP.

    The line at the bottom saying it was edited by me means that the thread has been edited by me - when I closed it to delete over 100 posts. The platform shows it as an edit on the opening post, rather than a thread edit.

    Your opening post has not been edited.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,286 ✭✭✭evolvingtipperary101


    ...



  • Administrators Posts: 53,829 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    The post itself wasn't edited.

    Vanilla, for some reason, marks the opening post in a thread as edited when certain actions are taken on the thread itself. In this case, whenever Big Bag of Chips closed the thread yesterday and then reopened it, Vanilla marked your post as edited.

    The contents have not changed, I just double checked.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,463 ✭✭✭HBC08



    I'm not overly familiar with the charter but is it OK for a poster to call other posters "scumbags"," a cancer", "malignant tumours"? I could go on.....

    When you throw into the mix that all these came from "two" posters it makes it all the more baffling.

    You must be getting reports on these?

    As I understand it you're not allowed have multiple accounts?

    Everybody here knows that's happening and the "two" posters are making a fool of you.

    (Please note that officially I'm not stating anybody has multiple accounts )



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,286 ✭✭✭evolvingtipperary101




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,286 ✭✭✭evolvingtipperary101




  • Administrators Posts: 14,032 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    I am the moderator whose name is on the bottom of the post, and I can assure you that your opening post has not been edited or amended or snipped or deleted in any way shape or form.

    There is a revision history viewable on all edited posts. It doesn't exist for your opening post, because your opening post was not edited.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    The attitude and language towards Ryan Tubridy by some people is is certainly not healthy. It is bordering on obsessive.

    It is not anything new- it was there in the long standing late late show thread and the radio thread long long before any of the payments stuff.

    I wouldnt be a big fan, and I can understand people being annoyed over the RTE shambles, but the obsession with RT is really next level stuff.

    I do get what people are saying about Dave Fanning comments being tolerated on the RIP Christy thread, but the tone was different. People were annoyed with Dave Fanning because of what he said, but didn't have an extreme personal vendetta against him, so it didn't read quite so manic. This is more about using Sinead to get (additional) digs at RT because its RT, and thats where it becomes an issue.

    I am shocked at the comments Beasty has had to delete from the Sinead O'Connor thread, appalling stuff, some people should just cop on to themselves. Some of the hatred in the RT thread about the money is too much as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,286 ✭✭✭evolvingtipperary101


    Fair enough. I apologize. But there were so many of my posts removed it becomes hard to keep track.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,829 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,463 ✭✭✭HBC08


    Great,delighted to hear it.

    So we can expect some action on posters with multiple accounts then?

    Or posters playing the mods like a violin whilst simultaneously runining threads?

    I'd say that would be welcomed by the vast majority.

    (Please note ,for the purposes on not getting banned I'm not suggesting anybody has multiple accounts)



  • Administrators Posts: 14,032 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    The moderators and admins are very aware of the ongoing issues on the site. We are aware of trolls, we suspect reregs, we see reports regarding abuse etc. And, in the main, these issues are dealt with. Sometimes something will slip through the net due to huge volumes of reports/fast moving threads etc.

    It is also a time consuming job. Today, personally, I have had a number of pretty lengthy PM exchanges with 6 separate people due to me taking action/deleting/warning posts on this one thread alone. Most of those PM exchanges were people arguing that I had warned them/actioned them unfairly. One poster told me I should be embarrassed for actioning their post. Only one poster was accepting of the action taken against them!

    So all those reports that the moderators get, and all the actions moderators take have a time consuming knock on effect when people don't like action being taken against them. It's not just a case of warning a post and everyone moves on. And in all correspondence, moderators are expected to be polite and calm even when we are getting abuse thrown at us or being called names purely for trying to keep things on track so the majority can enjoy the threads, rather than allow the minority ruin it. We are committed to clamping down on the behaviour that causes so much disruption to so many posters.

    Thanks to feedback from a significant number of posters, the users who keep the site alive, we will be putting supports and provisions in place for all moderators to be in a better position to actively clamp down on all manner of trolling, abuse, etc across the forums. This means there will be an awful lot of posters very unhappy in the coming days/weeks when they are warned up to and including bans due to being pulled up on behaviour that they maybe have been getting away with up to now. This will significantly increase the volunteer moderators' workload who will have to deal with large numbers of posters having a go at them because they've received a warning.

    But we have listened, we have taken the feedback on board and we are putting systems in place to try to address at least some of the issues people have raised. Rome wasn't built in a day, so we ask posters to be patient while we try to restore some sort of enjoyable space that everyone can contribute to and enjoy. We ask that you continue to report posts. They do get looked at. They do get reviewed. Just not always immediately.

    Thanks.

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭nachouser


    It would be the exact same posters using it to have a go at Tubridy, just starting from a different jumping off point; the death of Sinead O'Connor. I'd imagine a few posters would feel uneasy about that too. Being generous, it would be extremely tacky at best.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,463 ✭✭✭HBC08


    Thank you for taking the time to respond and actually explain things.

    Thanks also for the polite and informative way of posting this.

    I have to say (and you post confirms this) that you guys are at least aware of the issues.Thats a good thing and I'm sure ye will sort it out.

    I can't imagine how difficult it is to be a mod and wouldn't expose myself to it for any amount of money.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude




  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I am the subject of this thread and am not doing any moderation of it (beyond nuking the odd re-reg troll posting here)

    Please report any posts you feel are inappropriate an another Admin will pick it up



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,914 ✭✭✭skimpydoo




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Hi Beasty. We tore strips off of each other for hours after you gave me a warning!

    After we tuckered ourselves out we came to concensus.

    Both tired and emotional, but an understanding was reached with a laugh at the end.

    As far as I'm concerned you're sound.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,058 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The bullying has to stop too. E.g. that of Nullzero by the member who probably enjoys the most impunity of all (used to be a mod - maybe that's why).



Advertisement