Complaint about EU forum moderation.

auerillo · 2008-09-11 08:22:33

I’m afraid that you are going down a well worn path trodden by many others in the past who have concluded that the level of argument here is impoverished by the lack of respect and bullying tactics of some. It is said that the bully is guilty of the very vice from which he himself is guilty, and so it is here that many are…

#2 11-09-2008 09:05AM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

Completely off-topic for the EU forum.

0

#3 11-09-2008 09:10AM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

Split from this thread in the EU forum, because I'm tired of people claiming that they're being bullied and that they're intimidated from posting. i-bloodhound said he was going to start a help desk thread, but seems to have been unwilling to do so.

Admins/s-mods, can you allow auerillo and i-bloodhound to reply here? If they can criticise the moderation of the forum openly here (where they were repeatedly told to take it), they might feel they can offer some actual substantive argument back on the EU forum.

0

#4 11-09-2008 09:29AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

oscarBravo wrote: »

Split from this thread in the EU forum, because I'm tired of people claiming that they're being bullied and that they're intimidated from posting. i-bloodhound said he was going to start a help desk thread, but seems to have been unwilling to do so.

Admins/s-mods, can you allow auerillo and i-bloodhound to reply here? If they can criticise the moderation of the forum openly here (where they were repeatedly told to take it), they might feel they can offer some actual substantive argument back on the EU forum.

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I, and others, have no desire to post on the EU forum threads for the reasons given above, which we note you ignore, which is a shame, but hardly a surprise. Ironically, that is largely the reason why so many no longer contribute.

It's kind of you to ask the admin/s-mods if they can allow me to criticise the moderation of the forum openly here. I have no wish to criticise the forum and merely have stated some facts and observations. Indeed, I assume anyone can reply here, and not just

oscarBravo wrote: »

Admins/s-mods, can you allow auerillo and i-bloodhound to reply here?

those for whom you seek permission. That you do so, and do so in a public forum, seems passive aggressive.

While it would be wonderful if you actually considered the evidence and observations, it is, perhaps, too much to expect. You say you are "tired" of people saying they are bullied and harassed on your forum, yet you continue to blithely ignore all these people's views and continue your behaviour. Hence so many have left and no longer contribute, and you are free to continue to harass, bully and act the internet warrior role which you seem to enjoy so much.

0

#5 11-09-2008 09:40AM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I, and others, have no desire to post on the EU forum threads for the reasons given above, which we note you ignore, which is a shame, but hardly a surprise. Ironically, that is largely the reason why so many no longer contribute.

I haven't ignored those reasons. I categorically reject those reasons, I resent your continuing mis-characterisation of my moderation of the forum, and I want you to either back up your claims, or withdraw them and refrain from making them in future.

It's kind of you to ask the admin/s-mods if they can allow me to criticise the moderation of the forum openly here. I have no wish to criticise the forum and merely have stated some facts and observations.

This is utterly disingenuous of you. You claim that you don't wish to criticise the moderation of the forum, when the very first post of this thread describes it as rude, aggressive, abusive and bullying.

Indeed, I assume anyone can reply here, and not just those for whom you seek permission. That you do so, and do so in a public forum, seems passive aggressive.

You assume wrongly. I have asked for you and i-bloodhound specifically to be permitted to post here, as the two of you have repeatedly dragged conversations off-topic by criticising moderation instead of simply engaging in discussions. I'm calling you both out on that.

While it would be wonderful if you actually considered the evidence and observations, it is, perhaps, too much to expect. Hence so many have left and no longer contribute, and you are free to continue to harass, bully and act the internet warrior role which you seem to enjoy so much.

You haven't provided any evidence. You've simply done what you always do: retreat into vague accusations of bullying whenever someone posts something you disagree with.

I'd rather have a discussion than a continual whingefest. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't participate in discussions. If you want to participate, deal with the fact that people don't agree with you.

And if you want to assassinate my character, be prepared to produce evidence.

0

#6 11-09-2008 11:56AM

gandalf

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 24273

Thanks to Vexorg for giving me access to the Helpdesk so I can reply to part of this complaint.

auerillo wrote:

Complaining to the admins doesn’t seem to help, (I mentioned it to Gandalf who replied that he knew the moderator in question personally and judged him to be an ok guy), and thus avoided the specific allegations made about bullying and being rude and abusive.

Firstly to clear up a misconception I am not an admin, I am a former mod of politics and a former cmod of society. I currently moderate Airsoft & Photography.

You pm'ed me with regard to this subject and I gave you advice on where to post your concerns. Helpdesk to address the admins/smods of the site directly or Feedback if you wanted a discussion between the general populace. It appears you ignored this advice and posted your complaint on the EU Forum so I am not sure why you even bothered to pm me.

I am not going to critic a friend over pm's with someone I don't know from Adam. Also I no longer have a say in the running or modding of the Politics forum so there is no point in asking my opinion.

I gave you advice on what to do and you ignored it.

0

#7 12-09-2008 08:01AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't ignored those reasons. I categorically reject those reasons,

I have no wish to get into a slanging match with anyone. However, the accusation is of the consequences of bullying, intimidating and being partial, which are resulting in people ceasing to contribute. In my experience, it’s unusual that the person so accused also be left to judge as, which you demonstrate, their reaction is invariably to reject any accusation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You claim that you don't wish to criticise the moderation of the forum, when the very first post of this thread describes it as rude, aggressive, abusive and bullying.

If you read what I said, I said I didn't want to criticise the forum. I never said I didn't want to criticise the moderation of the forum.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You haven't provided any evidence. You've simply done what you always do: retreat into vague accusations of bullying whenever someone posts something you disagree with.

.

I gave a number of names, which spring to mind, of guys who no longer post on the forum. I'm sure there are others whom I don't know of, and that your response to my observation that a lot of posters no longer post on the forum is to ignore this evidence, and ask for evidence of something else, is telling. You ask for evidence of bullying, yet you know full well that bullying is an opinion, and no matter what evidence I did produce, you would just continue to "categorically deny" it. In any case, my observation was that many guys no longer post on the forum, which is obviously true.

Indeed, I have been contacted by guys who are unable to contribute in this place. Why you should have chosen this place to move my original post above, where no one seems allowed to contribute, is also interesting, as it also blocks anyone else who agrees with my observations, or who no longer posts there, adding to the evidence you say you want, from doing so. Is that why you chose to move my original post here?

"I came to a similar conclusion myself and didn't bother debating anymore. Thanks for the comment." "I had major problems with oscarBravo in the past and raised it but somehow the admins (owners of boards.ie) just allow him to 'get away' with his behaviour without realising that it is costing them users, etc." "I'm quite a direct person so I'll be as blunt and succinct as possible - oscarBravo is an ass. In addition to this, he's antagonistic, arrogant, rude and ultimately lacks any social interaction skills."

The above are a small selection of messages I have recieved from others who seem to be not allowed to post to this thread. Add to that the others, and the list of guys who no longer post, listed above, whom I can recall "..Rsaire, dresden8, is that so, jawlie, Berliner, gurramok, redspider, brendan777, , murphaph, dinxminx, xonxeited, looby loo, the high ground..." Are there likely to be others of whom I have no knowledge or can't recall? And you still say that you haven't made a single mistake, you haven't, even once, responded intemperately or rudely, you haven't even once moderated partially?

My observation is that the forum is impoverished by people not only not being made to feel welcome, but by feeling ridiculed, bullied and intimidated leading them to no longer posting there.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd rather have a discussion than a continual whingefest. .

I'm afraid your pejorative language here is yet more evidence of your intolerant and intemperate attitude.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And if you want to assassinate my character, be prepared to produce evidence.

I'm afraid your mis-accusation is yet another attempt to distract from the charge which is my observation that your behaviour drives people away from the forum and impoverishes it. That you should twist that into an accusation that I am trying to "assassinate my character" is ridiculous, and merely serves to enable you to avoid the issue. It seems apparent you are not open to anyone who has any criticism, and your response to criticism is bombastic and almost hysterical. Certainly it is neither measured nor balanced.

I notice another two posters have started off other threads about this same issue, and I hope you will open up this thread so that other posters can contribute also, so the thread can be provided with the evidence which you claim you want.

What I am requesting here is that someone senior to you read this thread, and the other threads, and have a quiet word with you (rather than using your preferred method of threatening and admonishing people in public, unnecessarily interrupting a topic), so that the threads can become interesting places of discussion and all can feel welcome and contribute valuably.

0

#8 12-09-2008 10:01AM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

...the forum is a sham...

auerillo wrote: »

If you read what I said, I said I didn't want to criticise the forum.

Perhaps you should make up your mind.

You ask for evidence of bullying, yet you know full well that bullying is an opinion, and no matter what evidence I did produce, you would just continue to "categorically deny" it.

That's a cop-out. You've made a serious accusation against me, and now you're making excuses not to back it up.

And you still say that you haven't made a single mistake, you haven't, even once, responded intemperately or rudely, you haven't even once moderated partially?

I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I've never made a mistake. I am capable of being blunt, especially when forced to repeat myself. As to partiality, I make a determined effort not to be partial when moderating, and measure my success in that by the fact that I receive abuse in fairly even measure from posters on both sides of almost all debates.

My observation is that the forum is impoverished by people not only not being made to feel welcome, but by feeling ridiculed, bullied and intimidated leading them to no longer posting there.

My observation is that the forum is impoverished to a much greater degree by people who start screaming "bully! moderator bias!" when someone disagrees with them, rather than actually engaging in debate.

What I am requesting here is that someone senior to you read this thread, and the other threads, and have a quiet word with you (rather than using your preferred method of threatening and admonishing people in public, unnecessarily interrupting a topic), so that the threads can become interesting places of discussion and all can feel welcome and contribute valuably.

You have publicly accused me of bullying. I reject the accusation.

Threads are interesting places of discussion when people discuss their topics. When posters stop continually derailing threads with accusations of bullying, and actually contribute something to the debate, I'll be happy.

0

#9 12-09-2008 01:49PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

oscarBravo wrote: »

You have publicly accused me of bullying. I reject the accusation.

.

Thats the problem. You seem think that if you repeat a denial often enough, then it moves from being merely an opinion, to being fact.

Unlike opinion, facts are stubborn things;

Fact 1; A number of posters have stopped contributing to the politics threads, and they have cited your bullying behaviour as the reason.

Fact2; You made the decision to move this discussion to a place where those people are barred from participating. While divide and conquer is as old as the world, it really is very obvious why you wanted to prevent anyone else from participating here, and says more about you than perhaps you might like to reveal.

I can only repeat my earlier comments and, especially, those imploring a senior person from boards.ie to have a quiet word with you, and that the political forums can become a place where people are made to feel welcome and not made to feel bullied.

That you dismiss the fact (again a fact) that some feel bullied to the point that they no longer contribute says much, and unless you curtail your behaviour politics will continue to lose posters and be a poorer place for it.

Are you really so lacking in insight that, even when a number of people tell you they feel that they have been bullied and intimidated by you, (to the point that they make a conscious decision to no longer interact in a forum where you are present), you consider they are all, every single one of them, wrong, and to just keep scatterguning blanket denials is an acceptable form of response?

In any case, arguing with you about it is pointless as we are not going to agree. Not if everyone else on boards were to tell you that they, too, had felt bullied by you would you accept it, and your opinion would be that they were all wrong.

If the attitude of boards.ie is that your behaviour is acceptable, as a moderator, then that also presumably means that posters will continue to stop contributing in the political threads as they disagree, and consider themselves to have been bullied and intimidated. That is, in my opinion, a shame, but its their site and its their decision and, either way, I wish you well.

0

#10 12-09-2008 02:50PM

seamus

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 66948

auerillo wrote: »

Fact 1; A number of posters have stopped contributing to the politics threads, and they have cited your bullying behaviour as the reason.

So far yourself and one other user have seen fit to complain. Outside of that, no-one else has.

Fact2; You made the decision to move this discussion to a place where those people are barred from participating. While divide and conquer is as old as the world, it really is very obvious why you wanted to prevent anyone else from participating here, and says more about you than perhaps you might like to reveal.

There's no ulterior motive here. You're the one making the complaint, therefore no-one else's input is required. If others have complaints, they can start threads here.

I think most of comments in this thread,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376293
are equally relevant here, particulary the one about debates -v- discussions.

All I can see in this particular thread are allegations without a single shred of evidence (Read: links).

0

#11 12-09-2008 03:34PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

seamus wrote: »

So far yourself and one other user have seen fit to complain. Outside of that, no-one else has.

There's no ulterior motive here. You're the one making the complaint, therefore no-one else's input is required. If others have complaints, they can start threads here.

I think most of comments in this thread,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376293
are equally relevant here, particulary the one about debates -v- discussions.

All I can see in this particular thread are allegations without a single shred of evidence (Read: links).

I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" you are looking for. If you don't consider it as evidence that lots of guys have considered that they have been bullied, then that's up to you. If you feel, reading some of the threads, that the moderators are justified in using pejorative language, issuing threats in public, and being rude, then that's up to you also.

The net effect is that if nothing is done, then guys like those listed above, and the others who consider they have been also been bullied, will continue to stop posting in the politics forum. Either way, it's no skin off my nose and if boards.ie can afford to lose customers in this way, that that's a commercial decision you have every right to take.

While I realise, as an employer, that its important to stand up for employees in public, (especially in this case where its voluntary and unpaid), I also realise as an employer, and as a business owner, that it usually the correct thing to do.

However, taking no action also has consequences (in this case to continually lose customers and reduce the number of hits per day at boards.ie), and thats a business decision which you have to weigh up for yourselves.

I wish you all the best and hope boards continues to thrive, and further hope that, while I accept no public rebuke can be made to the mod in question, that a quiet tactful word will be had and that the situation, which has impoverished the politics boards, will be quietly resolved, and new posters there will be encouraged and made to feel welcome.

0

#12 12-09-2008 03:44PM

seamus

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 66948

auerillo wrote: »

I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" you are looking for. If you don't consider it as evidence that lots of guys have considered that they have been bullied, then that's up to you.

People's feelings aren't evidence. A lot of people saying it cause to look into it perhaps, but as I said, there haven't been enough valid complaints (read: complaints with evidence) to warrant anything further.

If you feel, reading some of the threads, that the moderators are justified in using pejorative language, issuing threats in public, and being rude, then that's up to you also.

The onus is on you to provide evidence of the above accusations.

While I realise, as an employer, that its important to stand up for employees in public, (especially in this case where its voluntary and unpaid), I also realise as an employer, and as a business owner, that it usually the correct thing to do.

However, taking no action also has consequences (in this case to continually lose customers and reduce the number of hits per day at boards.ie), and thats a business decision which you have to weigh up for yourselves.

For the record, I'm not an owner of the site and have no stake here. Visitors to the site, like yourself and myself, aren't "customers". The moderators, like myself and oscarBravo aren't "employees". We're visitors to the site just like you, except with a few extra abilities. The site is a community. We're all in this together and we're all interested in making it a good site. What purpose would bullying visitors and stifling conversation have?

If boards was continually losing visitors, it would be noticed. If the EU forum was losing visitors, it would/will be noticed.

0

#13 13-09-2008 08:54AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

auerillo wrote: »

Unlike opinion, facts are stubborn things;

Fact 1; A number of posters have stopped contributing to the politics threads, and they have cited your bullying behaviour as the reason.

Fact2; You made the decision to move this discussion to a place where those people are barred from participating. While divide and conquer is as old as the world, it really is very obvious why you wanted to prevent anyone else from participating here, and says more about you than perhaps you might like to reveal.

I notice the poster Oscar Bravo didn't respond to these points. I point it out as he often accuses others of not replying to points in the politics thread, and instructs them to respond on pain of punishment if they don't. As has been said, the bully is often guilty of the very vice of which he accuses others.

The effect of moving my original post here is that Oscar bravo, in doing so, stopped anyone else being able to post to this thread, and thus giving him the evidence which he claims he wants. Whatever about natural justice being denied, it gives the impression this area is viewed as a place to silence anyone with an opinion which isn’t welcomed, by isolating them and not allowing anyone else to contribute.

seamus wrote: »

People's feelings aren't evidence. A lot of people saying it cause to look into it perhaps.

You seem to be saying that your default position is that no single complaint is valid unless there are others who also make the same complaint. Although you don’t say how many complaints you need for this to happen? Additionally, it is unclear what form any investigation might take? Would it not be easier for someone senior to have that quiet word with the moderator and let that be an end to the matter?

There is plenty of evidence. How about the guys I have listed who no longer contribute?

How about other guys such as this post?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56487349&postcount=9 .. or this one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56485256&postcount=1 or this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56507903&postcount=55 ? No? How about these then http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56508376&postcount=58 or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56512405&postcount=64 and http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56512852&postcount=66 . Then there is this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56516314&postcount=72 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56518790&postcount=78 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56594943&postcount=93 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56595190&postcount=97 , this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56595190&postcount=97 , and this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56595190&postcount=97 , or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56623115&postcount=149 , my own attempt to discuss with him here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56624035&postcount=151 , this one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56654190&postcount=177 , or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56657890&postcount=182 http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055279187&highlight=oscar+bravo .

These are a few posts, from guys who claim that the moderator in question is rude, aggressive, that he baits people and that he is responsible for many of them to no longer contribute in the politics forum.

This took me about 10 minutes to find, and if I had more time I have no doubt I could come up with others.

You have to agree that it is telling that the moderator in question, OB, decided to move my original complaint to a place where none of these people, or others, were allowed to contribute, thus effectively silencing anyone else who wanted to have an opinion here.

Perhaps you misunderstand why I made the original post which was to point out that OB’s behaviour puts guys off contributing in the political forums where he moderates. The evidence for that is overwhelming and can be seen by guys who have considered their engagement with OB to have led them to no longer contribute, evidenced by the examples in my original list “Rsaire, dresden8, is that so, jawlie, Berliner, gurramok, redspider, brendan777, , murphaph, dinxminx, xonxeited, looby loo, the high ground,” and the additional 16 examples above.

How about the selection of quotes I gave, in a previous post, of guys who contacted me and who are barred from commenting directly here: ""I came to a similar conclusion myself and didn't bother debating anymore. Thanks for the comment." "I had major problems with oscarBravo in the past and raised it but somehow the admins (owners of boards.ie) just allow him to 'get away' with his behaviour without realising that it is costing them users, etc." "I'm quite a direct person so I'll be as blunt and succinct as possible - oscarBravo is an ass. In addition to this, he's antagonistic, arrogant, rude and ultimately lacks any social interaction skills."

Red-Spider says; "My opinion would be that oscarBravo should be given a 'rest' from modding the politics forum, and I have no doubt that many would back that. On the one hand you could say having an active policeman in such a 'volatile' forum is a good thing and can help with 'libel issues', but on the other hand the 'strong arm' tactics poison the forum".

Additionally, the point made by SimpleSam06 “I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned.” reflects a view that OB is rude, antagonistic and treats other who are polite with aggression, rudeness and snide comments.

While it’s your prerogative that you may not agree with a single example or quote above, what you can’t ignore the fact that all these guys no longer contribute to the politics threads. The reason? They think Oscar bravo’s combatative style of posting and moderation is unacceptable to them as outlined in their posts. You may disagree with their analysis and think them wrong to find Oscar Bravo so objectionable. But you can't deny that a lot of posters do find his style so, and no longer post in the political threads.

Of course, you have blocked anyone else from joining in this thread to express their opinion, so it’s not possible to say with any degree of accuracy how many others, not only in my list or in the posts above, share that opinion.

I made the point that, as long as his behaviour continues, so too will the pattern established above of guys being attracted to the politics threads, starting to contribute, and then ceasing to contribute in the politics threads.

seamus wrote: »

If the EU forum was losing visitors, it would/will be noticed.

What I am trying to do here is to bring that very fact to your notice, and to demonstrate the reason why they are leaving, but curiously you seem to be doing everything in your power to do anything but notice it! I’m afraid those of us who have stopped contributing to the politics threads, for the reasons outline above, do not share your confidence in your above statement.

As I have said, and as others have said, it is your site and it’s your decision. As in many walks of life, inaction is usually the easy option and action usually requires more than that.

I hope that this problem is fixed and that many of those who no longer contribute to the politics threads return, and many new guys stay for longer than many do currently, to contribute vigorously and to enliven and perk up a forum which has been impoverished. Perhaps a good idea is for all mods to be required to take a break every once in a while? Or to move forums? Who knows, but what is apparent is that if nothing is done, so the pattern will continue. I hope someone senior will have that quiet word, and let that be an end to the matter.

I wish you, and OB, well, and look forward to a time when the political threads flourish.

0

#14 15-09-2008 09:23AM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

I notice the poster Oscar Bravo didn't respond to these points.

The poster oscarBravo was away for the weekend. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not at my computer 24/7.

I point it out as he often accuses others of not replying to points in the politics thread, and instructs them to respond on pain of punishment if they don't.

I point out that posters have not replied to points after they've logged back on and posted again. In other words, I don't jump to conclusions; I give people an opportunity to reply, and take them to task if they don't.

More specifically, I do this in the case of posters who have a continual habit of posting the same things over and over again without supporting argument, and without engaging with people who challenge them. This behaviour is known as "soapboxing", and isn't acceptable in a serious discussion forum.

As has been said, the bully is often guilty of the very vice of which he accuses others.

This is an example of what I'm talking about: you continually accuse me of "bullying" - an accusation I resent, and categorically reject. When challenged for evidence of this, you produce links to other complaints about my moderation, including some that contain directly abusive comments about me personally.

If you're going to accuse me of bullying, start by defining "bullying" in a manner that reasonable people will agree upon, and then produce evidence to show that I'm guilty of it rather than slinging copious quantities of mud in the hope that some of it will stick.

The effect of moving my original post here is that Oscar bravo, in doing so, stopped anyone else being able to post to this thread, and thus giving him the evidence which he claims he wants. Whatever about natural justice being denied, it gives the impression this area is viewed as a place to silence anyone with an opinion which isn’t welcomed, by isolating them and not allowing anyone else to contribute.

Anyone who wants can start a thread in this forum. You were invited to do so yourself, but in blatant contravention of the rules you complained on a thread in the EU forum itself. Rather than sanction you for this, I moved your complaint to the appropriate location - which you've complained about.

How about other guys such as this post?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56487349&postcount=9 .. or this one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56485256&postcount=1 or this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56507903&postcount=55 ? No? How about these then http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56508376&postcount=58 or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56512405&postcount=64 and http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56512852&postcount=66 . Then there is this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56516314&postcount=72 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56518790&postcount=78 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56594943&postcount=93 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56595190&postcount=97 , this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56595190&postcount=97 , and this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56595190&postcount=97 , or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56623115&postcount=149 , my own attempt to discuss with him here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56624035&postcount=151 , this one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56654190&postcount=177 , or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56657890&postcount=182 http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055279187&highlight=oscar+bravo .

You've linked a series of posts from a single complaint thread. You'll note that the site administrators didn't uphold that complaint. In fact, you may note that there were a number of posts in that thread that took the opposite stance to the one you've taken, such as this, or this.

You've also linked a thread from jessop1, where he complains about censorship, because (at the time) we were restricting discussion of the Lisbon treaty to a single thread. As a result of that thread, the EU sub-forum was created - to which jessop1 has contributed a grand total of two posts, both of which relate solely to the fact of the forum's creation, and neither of which has contributed anything to the discussion.

Red-Spider says; "My opinion would be that oscarBravo should be given a 'rest' from modding the politics forum, and I have no doubt that many would back that. On the one hand you could say having an active policeman in such a 'volatile' forum is a good thing and can help with 'libel issues', but on the other hand the 'strong arm' tactics poison the forum".

Additionally, the point made by SimpleSam06 “I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned.” reflects a view that OB is rude, antagonistic and treats other who are polite with aggression, rudeness and snide comments.

You've quoted two of the posts you linked earlier. As I've pointed out, those were from the same complaint thread, and that complaint was not upheld. Is it so hard to find evidence of my misbehaviour that you have to keep recycling the same protests over and over again in the hope that you'll make me look even worse than I am?

While it’s your prerogative that you may not agree with a single example or quote above, what you can’t ignore the fact that all these guys no longer contribute to the politics threads. The reason? They think Oscar bravo’s combatative style of posting and moderation is unacceptable to them as outlined in their posts. You may disagree with their analysis and think them wrong to find Oscar Bravo so objectionable. But you can't deny that a lot of posters do find his style so, and no longer post in the political threads.

That's their prerogative. What you're choosing to ignore is the substantially greater number of posters who do continue to post in the political forums, including those whose opinions I disagree with.

I made the point that, as long as his behaviour continues, so too will the pattern established above of guys being attracted to the politics threads, starting to contribute, and then ceasing to contribute in the politics threads.

Some people will choose not to post there. That's their prerogative. Some will choose to do so. That's their prerogative.

Some will try to claim that they've been oppressed by the moderator. Some have tried to claim that they're being bullied by a tag-team of three other posters. In short, some don't seem to be able to cope with the fact that other people disagree with them, despite the fact that that's the raison d'être of a discussion forum.

0

#15 15-09-2008 11:11AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

I’ve already said that it is pointless arguing about it with you, as you have started your position is to “categorically reject” any criticism, rather than consider it.

You have said yourself that “…I'm tired of people claiming that they're being bullied and that they're intimidated from posting”, indicating that you are aware there are people who consider you are a bully, and that they are intimidated from posting. Indeed, there are so many you are “tired” dealing with them.

Additionally, I initially came up with around 15 people I know no longer post in the politics threads, who cite your behaviour as the reason.

Add to that the 16 quotes in my last post where other people actually state, in writing, that they consider your behaviour to be unacceptable, intimidating, bullying, rude, antagonistic and confrontational, (all their words, not mine),and that that is the reason they no longer contribute in the politics threads.

Add to that the messages I have received from other guys saying they no longer post in politics, which I quoted, again citing your behaviour as the sole reason.

That’s quite a lot of people all saying the same thing, that they no longer post in the politics threads due to your behaviour.

The most interesting thing is how you decide to respond to all these people. If it was brought to my attention that someone felt bullied and intimidated by my behaviour, even if I felt I was in the right in the situation, I would apologise and say it was never my intention to make them feel that. Your response has been to “categorically reject” it, and usually to go on and abuse them some more.

If it was brought to my attention that 20 or 30 people had felt bullied and intimidated by my behaviour, I’d consider I had a problem. I would also be ashamed that my behaviour was considered to have led so many to feel that way.

Again, your response is telling because you automatically go into attack mode, apparently without drawing breath to consider whether perhaps 20 or 30 people might have a point.

You want to try to distract from this core issue with semantics about “defining "bullying””, and falling back on the fact that, at some time in the past, a particular complaint against you was not upheld and so on and so on.

The issue is very simple; a large number of people have cited your behaviour as the reason they no longer post in the politics threads.

That is a fact, as evidenced by their own words and by their actions by no longer posting in the politics threads.

Your response avoids the core issue and is inadequate. Additionally, it lacks grace and is an attempt to create a smokescreen from the core fact, which I repeat, which is that a large number of people ( around 30 as evidenced in my last post) cite your behaviour as the reason they no longer post in the politics threads.

0

#16 15-09-2008 12:10PM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

I’ve already said that it is pointless arguing about it with you, as you have started your position is to “categorically reject” any criticism, rather than consider it.

And yet, you're continuing to argue about it. Or rather, you're continuing to repeat yourself instead of actually engaging with anything I say - a familiar tactic from you.

You have said yourself that “…I'm tired of people claiming that they're being bullied and that they're intimidated from posting”, indicating that you are aware there are people who consider you are a bully, and that they are intimidated from posting. Indeed, there are so many you are “tired” dealing with them.

I'm aware that there are people who have claimed to be bullied by me. So far, it seems that their definition of "bullying" is "disagreeing with them", or "enforcing the forum's rules". What I'm tired of is people whining about intimidation, when no such thing has happened.

Additionally, I initially came up with around 15 people I know no longer post in the politics threads, who cite your behaviour as the reason.

Add to that the 16 quotes in my last post where other people actually state, in writing, that they consider your behaviour to be unacceptable, intimidating, bullying, rude, antagonistic and confrontational, (all their words, not mine),and that that is the reason they no longer contribute in the politics threads.

Add to that the messages I have received from other guys saying they no longer post in politics, which I quoted, again citing your behaviour as the sole reason.

That’s quite a lot of people all saying the same thing, that they no longer post in the politics threads due to your behaviour.

Whether or not they post in Politics is their prerogative. I can be blunt - if you consider that rude, fair enough. I can be antagonistic and confrontational; such is the nature of political discussion sometimes. More to the point, I get blunt and antagonistic in the face of continual breaches of the rules. I don't see why I should pander to the wishes of people who are not interested in reading simple guidelines and sticking to them.

As for intimidating and bullying: I'm not. You saying I am doesn't make me so. The fact that you duck and weave around a request to define these terms is telling. You've accused me of something, and you won't back it up. Why is that?

Again, your response is telling because you automatically go into attack mode, apparently without drawing breath to consider whether perhaps 20 or 30 people might have a point.

I have considered it, at length. My conclusion is that they don't.

You want to try to distract from this core issue with semantics about “defining "bullying””...

The definition of "bullying" is at the core of this issue. The fact that you consider this "semantics" demonstrates that you are not actually serious about the ostensible nature of this complaint, and are using an emotionally charged and pejorative term to bring a vague complaint without actually being willing to back it up with specifics.

...and falling back on the fact that, at some time in the past, a particular complaint against you was not upheld and so on and so on.

This is particularly disingenuous. That particular complaint is one which you mined deeply for quotes to back up your position. When I point out that the complaint was dismissed, suddenly it's a vague "some time in the past..." issue. If you can dredge up that complaint in support of your position, I can use the fact that it was dismissed in support of mine.

Your response avoids the core issue and is inadequate. Additionally, it lacks grace and is an attempt to create a smokescreen from the core fact, which I repeat, which is that a large number of people ( around 30 as evidenced in my last post) cite your behaviour as the reason they no longer post in the politics threads.

My "behaviour" is too conveniently generic a term. I'm not interesting in entertaining an accusation on behalf of a bunch of anonymous people who allegedly sent you messages.

If there's a reason why you, personally, are disinclined to post on Politics as a result of my actions, cite those actions and explain why I'm not justified in doing them. If you're going to accuse me of bullying, define bullying with examples. If you're not prepared to do this, but instead engage in another exercise in armwaving generalities, then this conversation is over.

If others want to complain about me, they're free to start their own Help Desk threads.

0

#17 15-09-2008 12:40PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

oscarBravo wrote: »

... I'm aware that there are people who have claimed to be bullied by me. So far, it seems that their definition of "bullying" is "disagreeing with them", or "enforcing the forum's rules". What I'm tired of is people whining about intimidation, when no such thing has happened....As for intimidating and bullying: I'm not. You saying I am doesn't make me so. The fact that you duck and weave around a request to define these terms is telling. You've accused me of something, and you won't back it up.
.

You say that I have accused you of something and won't back it up?

It's actually 30+ people who have accused you of the same thing, which is outlined in my post above, with quotes as evidence in a previous post. Even if you refuse to see the evidence, it is there plainly for everyone else to see.

Your attempts to do anything other than address that fact would be funny were they not so obvious.

I reiterate my comments made in my last post, that you continue to avoid the core issue and try to create a smokescreen to confuse.

That you think that these 30+ people are all wrong, and that its an acceptable response to just continue your policy to “categorically reject” their opinions, is your position, and we will have to disagree.

We are obviously not going to get anywhere as long as you refuse to consider the possibility that 30+ people might not be all wrong, and that some find do your behaviour bullying and intimidating, (which you coyly refer to as "blunt").

Seamus asked for evidence, and it has been supplied in the form of a large number of members stating, in black and white, that they consider themselves to have been bullied and intimidated by you to the point that they no longer engage with you, or in the forums where you moderate.

It's now up to boards.ie to decide what to do with that evidence, as further discussion with you directly appears to be pointless.

0

#18 15-09-2008 01:30PM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

You say that I have accused you of something and won't back it up?

It's actually 30+ people who have accused you of the same thing, which is outlined in my post above, with quotes as evidence in a previous post. Even if you refuse to see the evidence, it is there plainly for everyone else to see.

I've addressed those quotes. I haven't told you what you want to hear; therefore (in your rather bizarre worldview) I have "refused to see" them. You're raking up an old dispute in an effort to lend credence to a current complaint. I've asked you for evidence of me bullying you. Typically, you have refused to do so. Your complaint is devoid of substance.

I reiterate my comments made in my last post, that you continue to avoid the core issue and try to create a smokescreen to confuse.

There is no core issue. You're making some vague complaint about my moderation of the forum, and when asked for specifics you produce links to another complaint made in the past.

I'll ask the question again, so you can dodge it again: what, specifically, is your problem with my moderation of the EU forum? What specific moderator actions of mine have offended you lately, and what should I have done instead?

That you think that these 30+ people are all wrong, and that its an acceptable response to just continue your policy to “categorically reject” their opinions, is your position, and we will have to disagree.

I accept that there are people who dislike me and the way I moderate the forum. The bulk of the complaints I have received have been from people who have accused me of political bias against them, but who have singularly failed to back up those accusations with evidence. My default position is to reject a complaint that's made about me, especially when that complaint isn't backed up with evidence - and several people making the same unsubstantiated allegations don't constitute evidence.

We are obviously not going to get anywhere as long as you refuse to consider the possibility that 30+ people might not be all wrong, and that some find do your behaviour bullying and intimidating, (which you coyly refer to as "blunt").

I'm not sure what your weight of numbers argument is intended to achieve. I could trawl through the same thread you dug your complaints out of and count the number of posters who have backed me up, but it would be an exercise in irrelevance.

Seamus asked for evidence, and it has been supplied in the form of a large number of members stating, in black and white, that they consider themselves to have been bullied and intimidated by you to the point that they no longer engage with you, or in the forums where you moderate.

I can link to a number of posters who believe that the US government blew up the WTC on 9/11, but that doesn't mean it happened. It certainly doesn't constitute evidence. If I have intimidated or bullied you, link to the posts where I did so.

It's now up to boards.ie to decide what to do with that evidence, as further discussion with you directly appears to be pointless.

If by "pointless" you mean that I'm not going to roll over and accept your baseless character assassination, then yes, it's pointless.

0

#19 15-09-2008 04:13PM

gandalf

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 24273

My god I can't believe some of the pontification that has spewed from your keyboard auerillo. Not only have you misrepresented what I said to you insinuating that I was an admin favouring Oscarbravo when I was infact not alot of the so called wronged users you have referenced are more than likely re-registered users who have caused issues on politics in earlier guises (as I am no longer a mod there I can not check this).

I want you to apologise to me for the misrepresentation of our conversation and would be also be interested in the delay in your posting after the flurry of pm's that went between us. Maybe it wasn't that important to you afterall eh?

0

#20 15-09-2008 09:11PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

gandalf wrote: »

My god I can't believe some of the pontification that has spewed from your keyboard auerillo. Not only have you misrepresented what I said to you insinuating that I was an admin favouring Oscarbravo when I was infact not alot of the so called wronged users you have referenced are more than likely re-registered users who have caused issues on politics in earlier guises (as I am no longer a mod there I can not check this).

I want you to apologise to me for the misrepresentation of our conversation and would be also be interested in the delay in your posting after the flurry of pm's that went between us. Maybe it wasn't that important to you afterall eh?

Thanks for your post which I have just read. I really have no idea what you mean by the first paragraph, although you are right I did incorrectly refer to you as a moderator and I am very happy to apologise for that.

As to the misrepresentation of what you refer to as the flurry of emails between us, I'm at a loss to know which bit's of it I misrepresented. Certainly, as you seem to feel very strongly about it, i am very sorry if I have misrepresented it As you hvae made an accusation that I have acted dishonourably in misrepresenting our short email exchange, I am forced to reproduce it here in full to let others make up their own minds. I only have a record of four emails in total, two from me and two from you;

" [FONT=&quot]From Auerillo 02/09/2008 17.36[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]OB[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]perhaps it was the wrong place to vent re oscar bravo, and I have no doubt he is a grand fellow in real life. However,reading some of his posts in the political forum show him to be a bully and aggressive and rude.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From Galdalf 02/09/2008 18.15 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Re: OB[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As someone who has modded the politics forum in the past I think that he is justified in most of his responses. He does on occasion go a bit too far but most of his post are warranted, especially knowing the members they are aimed at.

I suggest if you have a problem with him that you either address it directly with him or post on the helpdesk with examples so an admin/smod can deal with it.

Regards,

P[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]From Auerillo 03/09/2008 07.31[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]OB[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Thanks for your reply. Maybe I am just being sensitive, but that's the way he comes over to me sometimes. Just in case, are you able to point me in the direction of the helpdesk?

Many thanks,

J

[FONT=&quot]From Galdalf 03/09/2008 08.44 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Re: OB[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

This is the forum you seek.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30 "

If you want to make a judgment that the opinions of all the guys who I have quoted are invalidated because you imagine some of them might have re-registered, then that's your decision. Some examples;, Redspider, has 2512 posts under his belt, dlofnep has 7003 posts to his name, Jessop has 406, and simplesam06 has 3156 posts to his name. I'd have thought if someone had re-registered they would be more likely to have very few posts to their names. Indeed, dlofnep has almost as many posts as OB himself!

0

#21 15-09-2008 09:40PM

gandalf

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 24273

Well I see pm's go between us in a short period of time and then nothing for 8 days, surely if this was vexing you so much when you were posting me you would have posted immediately. You didn't which leads me to believe far from wanting the best for the forum you have other motivations for your crusade.

As for your examples that list is far smaller than the dramatic total of 30 users you spouted earlier. I notice you don't quote Slabmurphy as one of the reliables or you actually list one post three times (I suppose you need to fill things out a bit). Also post count is no indication of the quality of a persons contribution. I could go further and critique all of the people you mention as posters but I won't.

And finally you never asked my permission to post PRIVATE MESSAGES between the two of us and just went ahead and posted them. That is considered very bad form and doesn't gain you any respect here at all. I suggest you give up your tainted crusade and next time if you make a complaint you ensure you have the facts straight about people if you are going to quote them and pull out the "biased admins" card :rolleyes:

0

#22 15-09-2008 10:06PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

gandalf wrote: »

Well I see pm's go between us in a short period of time and then nothing for 8 days, surely if this was vexing you so much when you were posting me you would have posted immediately. You didn't which leads me to believe far from wanting the best for the forum you have other motivations for your crusade.

As for your examples that list is far smaller than the dramatic total of 30 users you spouted earlier. I notice you don't quote Slabmurphy as one of the reliables or you actually list one post three times (I suppose you need to fill things out a bit). Also post count is no indication of the quality of a persons contribution. I could go further and critique all of the people you mention as posters but I won't.

And finally you never asked my permission to post PRIVATE MESSAGES between the two of us and just went ahead and posted them. That is considered very bad form and doesn't gain you any respect here at all. I suggest you give up your tainted crusade and next time if you make a complaint you ensure you have the facts straight about people if you are going to quote them and pull out the "biased admins" card :rolleyes:

It wasn't vexing me, and doesn't. I am sad that so many guys feel unwilling to engage with OB, and no longer post in the politics threads, but it's not exactely going to affect my life very much. Or theirs, I wouldn't imagine.

You are right, the 4 were examples, and, like you, I don't find slabmurphy particularly reliable mainly from the hysterical tone of his posts. Merely because I don't find one guy reliable doesn't make everyone elses's opinion invalid. It doesn't even make slabmurphy's opinion invalid. The reason I gave these examples was to show that your claim, that the posters had re-registered, seem unlikely, and 7000 plus posts makes it hard to imagine how he would have attained such a high post count.

I consider it bad form to accuse me of misrepresenting a "flurry", (a flurry being a total of 4 emails over 2 days), of emails between us, without evidence and, as far as I can see, without any basis. If you can tell me how I misrepresented you, from the emails, which has caused you distress, then I will be very happy to apologise.

Its ironic that you can become exercised over what looks like a rather innocent and polite series of two messages to each other, and not understand how all the guys quoted previously can become exercised by what OB calls being "blunt" and which they consider to be rather more than bluntness.

0

#23 15-09-2008 10:32PM

gandalf

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 24273

auerillo wrote: »

It wasn't vexing me, and doesn't. I am sad that so many guys feel unwilling to engage with OB, and no longer post in the politics threads, but it's not exactely going to affect my life very much. Or theirs, I wouldn't imagine.

It must be, why are you continuing to post here? You are on here like a dog with a new bone? Again give us the list of the Boards 30 you keep spouting on about.

You are right, the 4 were examples, and, like you, I don't find slabmurphy particularly reliable mainly from the hysterical tone of his posts. Merely because I don't find one guy reliable doesn't make everyone elses's opinion invalid. It doesn't even make slabmurphy's opinion invalid. The reason I gave these examples was to show that your claim, that the posters had re-registered, seem unlikely, and 7000 plus posts makes it hard to imagine how he would have attained such a high post count.

You quoted him, either he's reliable or not? Also you have said over 30 users list them please you provided a handful of names in that list, one of whom gained most of his post on the soccer forum, yes not a re-reg but also not a regular on politics which is one of the most strictly modded forums on boards for a very good reason and a forum where he may not be familiar with the the guidelines for posting.

Also why did you list one of the so called complaint posts 3 times, was it to fill out the thread?

I consider it bad form to accuse me of misrepresenting a "flurry", (a flurry being a total of 4 emails over 2 days), of emails between us, without evidence and, as far as I can see, without any basis. If you can tell me how I misrepresented you, from the emails, which has caused you distress, then I will be very happy to apologise.

Actually 2 days is a lie, the exchange took place in less than 24 hours it is not even one day. Again I can't understand why you contacted someone you don't know, who is obviously not an admin on the site and then blatantly misrepresented and twisted what they said to you.

Looking for a bit of drama to spice up your complaint eh :rolleyes:

Also you have ignored what I said about it being frowned upon to publish private messages between users in a post without at least having the decency to check its ok with the other party involved.

Its ironic that you can become exercised over what looks like a rather innocent and polite series of two messages to each other, and not understand how all the guys quoted previously can become exercised by what OB calls being "blunt" and which they consider to be rather more than bluntness.

Whats ironic is that you lied in your original post that the admins were ignoring your complaint when they were never engaged with originally.

Personally I think you are nit picking and enjoying wasting everyones time.

0

#24 16-09-2008 07:13AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

gandalf wrote: »

It must be, why are you continuing to post here? You are on here like a dog with a new bone? Again give us the list of the Boards 30 you keep spouting on about.

You quoted him, either he's reliable or not? Also you have said over 30 users list them please you provided a handful of names in that list, one of whom gained most of his post on the soccer forum, yes not a re-reg but also not a regular on politics which is one of the most strictly modded forums on boards for a very good reason and a forum where he may not be familiar with the the guidelines for posting.

Also why did you list one of the so called complaint posts 3 times, was it to fill out the thread?

Actually 2 days is a lie, the exchange took place in less than 24 hours it is not even one day. Again I can't understand why you contacted someone you don't know, who is obviously not an admin on the site and then blatantly misrepresented and twisted what they said to you.

Looking for a bit of drama to spice up your complaint eh :rolleyes:

Also you have ignored what I said about it being frowned upon to publish private messages between users in a post without at least having the decency to check its ok with the other party involved.

Whats ironic is that you lied in your original post that the admins were ignoring your complaint when they were never engaged with originally.

Personally I think you are nit picking and enjoying wasting everyones time.

You are right that I am not perfect and may have included the same quote three times in error etc etc. Im really not going to go down the route of trading insults with you.

You accused me of misrepresenting our correspondence, yet after I publish it you don't say where I misrepresented you.

Now you accuse me of lying, a serious charge, because I consider the 2nd September and the 3rd of September to be two days. You seem determined to raise the tempo of the discussion with this sort of silly allegation, and I'm just not interested in trading insults.

I'm happy for other members to judge the fairness of your challenges, for example that you conside me to be lying because I consider the 2nd and 3rd of September to be two days. Please feel free to continue to find as mush fault as you like with me. I have lots of faults so it shouldn't be too difficult, if thats what you seem determined to do.

To go back on topic, I can only repeat that there are a lot of guys on boards.ie, who no longer engage with OB, or contribute to the threads where he is moderator, because they judge him to be rude, antagonistic and a bully.

No matter what i say, or what anyone says, that is their opinion.

0

#25 16-09-2008 09:01AM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

To go back on topic, I can only repeat that there are a lot of guys on boards.ie, who no longer engage with OB, or contribute to the threads where he is moderator, because they judge him to be rude, antagonistic and a bully.

Yes, you can only repeat that. You can't answer direct questions, or actually engage in a discussion on the topic. You can only repeat the allegation over and over, and hope that somehow repetition is reinforcement enough.

No matter what i say, or what anyone says, that is their opinion.

As is noted in the Politics charter, there's a difference between opinion and fact.

0

#26 16-09-2008 04:22PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, you can only repeat that. You can't answer direct questions, or actually engage in a discussion on the topic. You can only repeat the allegation over and over, and hope that somehow repetition is reinforcement enough. As is noted in the Politics charter, there's a difference between opinion and fact.

You have said your policy is to "categorically reject" any criticism, so it seems pointless to discuss. In any case, I can't discuss on behalf of other people or on behalf of their opinions, and all I am doing here is to express those opinons, which speak for themselves. It's not up to me to engage in discussion, as my point, as I never tire of pointing out, is that a lot of guys don't post in the politics forum due to what they view as your unacceptable behaviour.

I've already said that Rsaire, dresden8, is that so, jawlie, Berliner, gurramok, redspider, brendan777, murphaph, dinxminx, xonxeited, looby loo, the high ground, are only some members that instantly spring to mind as guys who no longer post in the political forums.

These are some examples of what some other guys say. They are not "allegations", they are their own words. And its a fact that this is their opinion!

Dlofnep says “I would also add that OB is not fit to moderate… I'll save my political opinions for a more open-minded forum, and stick to banter in other forums on here.”

Paddybare said “my comments were shaped by ob's snide (it seemed to me)attitude towards simplesam”

Simplesam06 said “I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned.

I wouldn't mind so much but I found the user's posts very interesting and informative, as well as on-topic. As anyone who knows my posts on boards will testify, I've no fear of "vigorous" discussion, but I'm not attempting such here. I was honestly taken aback, if I was that user I would have felt frankly intimidated.”

Redspider said ; “oscarBravo …uses them in a childlike manner and they are like his 'toy'. He enjoys giving them out, …My opinion would be that oscarBravo should be given a 'rest' from modding the politics forum, and I have no doubt that many would back that.”

Brendan77 said “I think its quite obvious that Oscar is a little internet dictator.”

Jawlie said; Oscar bravo's style can come across as aggressive and bullying, …I myself do not contribute to the politics forums and consider them not places I want to contribute while they are moderated by such a rude, immature and biased moderator.”

Jessop1 said “I would like to report that I believe that a moderator of the politics forum, OscarBravo, is abusing his powers of moderation. This abuse of power is in my opinion, driven by his own political views.

Auerillo said “I find the modorator oscar bravo to be aggressive and confrontational…I think the politics threads are less interesting places due to his excessive zeal and aggressive attitude.”

Constitutionus says : “i fully agree with jessop and in fact myself and ALOT of others have fecked off to politics.ie because of the facist tactics of oscar bravO …and the quicker this is addressed the faster genuine debate can resume on the politics board. as it stands its way, WAY behind on P.ie”

Deerblue said “I'd be an example of a poster that would like to use the politics board but as it currently stands I find it unusable for the purposes of having a free flowing political debate”

Agentorange said; “It seems that we have to have a view that oscarbravo considers “reasonable”, and it seems if he doesn’t consider a viewpoint reasonable, he denies the holder of the view the ability to discuss further. Hardly the stance of someone who is suppose to moderate a forum … am saddened and disappointed that some of his decisions, which seem to be driven by his own agenda, reduce the politics forum to a pointless place where one is not allowed dissent from his views.”

Villain said “The politics forum became a complete joke…The mods were all changed with the exception of Oscar Bravo…things don't seem to have changed.

Gandalf23 said ; “Look OB, you are in danger of strangling politics because you have such a tight grip on it. Let go a little and see what happens… At this point OB, I believe that you are unwilling to listen to any feedback as you have become as inflexible and intrenched in your position…Inflexibility and unwillingness to take legitimate feedback on board is a bad trait in a mod ... especially a politics mod.”

Donegalfella said “…I would therefore like to request that "infractions" issued against me by oscarBravo be removed, and that you consider whether oscarBravo can be trusted to remain impartial in his moderating of political fora.”

i-bloodhound said” I should like to complain about the manner that a moderator …abuses moderator abilities. The moderator in question is oscarBravo …numerous factors including oscarBravo's aggressive nature, in particular against those that possess opposite opinions to him,…It has come to the point that numerous users no longer participate in the Politics forum as a result of this conduct…oscarBravo is extremely aggressive in expressing any view whatsoever as is clear throughout the thread in question and singlehandedly has made many users not want to participate in the discussion.”

Private message to me, 11.09 10.51 “I FULLY agree with you, and with i-bloodhound too, even though I have just given a cursory glance at what you have outlined and have not read the background in detail.

I had major problems with oscarBravo in the past and raised it but somehow the admins (owners of boards.ie) just allow him to 'get away' with his behaviour witout realising that it is costing them users etc.”

Private message to me 05/08 14.14
{Originally Posted by auerillo
[oscar bravo is a bully, and the hallmark of a bully is he accuses others of the very vice from which he, himself, suffers. Many guys here do not engage with him as he is rude, aggressive and impoverished the debate by his contributions}.

"I came to a similar conclusion myself and didn't bother debating anymore. Thanks for the comment.”

Private message to me 26082008 15.35 “Thanks. I find him (oscar bravo) to be a bit of a tosser.

I expect once you read this you will rush to find ways of trying to find fault, avoid considering any of it, and do anything but consider these to be legitimate opinions.

And you are free to ignore all of it, just as we are free to no longer engage in the threads where you operate.

While I don't want to be rude and just stop posting here, I really can't see any further point in having circular conversation where we just repeat ourselves, and where your policy is to "categorically reject" any criticism. Seamus asked for evidence that guys no longer take part in forums where OB is involved, & I have given it.

0

#27 16-09-2008 05:22PM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

auerillo wrote: »

You have said your policy is to "categorically reject" any criticism, so it seems pointless to discuss.

So you keep saying. It's your standard tired "debating" tactic of repeating yourself ad nauseam instead of actually taking in anything that's been said to you.

In any case, I can't discuss on behalf of other people or on behalf of their opinions, and all I am doing here is to express those opinons, which speak for themselves. It's not up to me to engage in discussion, as my point, as I never tire of pointing out, is that a lot of guys don't post in the politics forum due to what they view as your unacceptable behaviour.

I'm pretty sure you've mentioned that before. Maybe you should list a bunch of posters again.

I've already said that Rsaire, dresden8, is that so, jawlie, Berliner, gurramok, redspider, brendan777, murphaph, dinxminx, xonxeited, looby loo, the high ground, are only some members that instantly spring to mind as guys who no longer post in the political forums.

Oh look, you did.

Let me ask you yet another direct question, so you can add it to the list of questions you've refused to answer: how many of these posters' complaints have you investigated in detail, and do you feel that all of them are completely valid?

I expect once you read this you will rush to find ways of trying to find fault, avoid considering any of it, and do anything but consider these to be legitimate opinions.

I suspect you will refuse point-blank - yet again - to answer the direct questions I've put to you. I wouldn't be surprised if you just repeated the same list of posters yet again, and maybe even quoted them all yet again.

And you are free to ignore all of it, just as we are free to no longer engage in the threads where you operate.

I've already told you that I'm not ignoring it. I take on board genuine feedback. I'm open to discussion.

What you're doing here is not discussion. True to your form elsewhere on this site, you're simply soap-boxing. You want to put a point of view across, and you don't want to hear anything to the contrary. You think that merely repeating yourself over and over again and refusing to acknowledge alternative views constitutes discussion.

When you actually want to discuss the issue at hand, come back to me.

Seamus asked for evidence that guys no longer take part in forums where OB is involved, & I have given it.

Seamus asked for evidence of unacceptable behaviour on my part. Seamus also said "People's feelings aren't evidence."

0

#28 16-09-2008 05:58PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let me ask you yet another direct question, so you can add it to the list of questions you've refused to answer: how many of these posters' complaints have you investigated in detail, and do you feel that all of them are completely valid? .... I've already told you that I'm not ignoring it. I take on board genuine feedback. I'm open to discussion.

What you're doing here is not discussion...When you actually want to discuss the issue at hand, come back to me. Seamus asked for evidence of unacceptable behaviour on my part. Seamus also said "People's feelings aren't evidence."

There is a difference between a complaint and an opinion, and while we may disagree as to whether or not an individual complaint is valid, what can't be disputed is that an opinion is sincerely held.

What I have detailed here are the opinions of members, and to say "i'm not ignoring it" is exactely what you are doing. When you say you ..."take on board genuine feedback" I am guessing that the reason you are not taking any of their opinions on board is because you have decided to call it "not genuine" feedback?

I've already said that I am not in a position to discuss other peoples opinions, which is the issue at hand, as they speak for themselves. I agree that feelings are not good evidence, as feelings are largely emotionally based.

Opinions are based on evidence and personal experience, and you'll notice that most members who expressed an opinion refer to a specific event or events, or seem to be relying on past observation, on which they based their opinion, and not to their "feelings".

0

#29 16-09-2008 07:08PM

oscarBravo

Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 26962

Predictably, you've avoided yet again answering any of my questions. As such, as far as I'm concerned, you're not interested in actually discussing the issue.

Unless the admins or s-mods have anything they'd like me to clarify or explain, this ends my input into the matter. I'll leave the last word to you.

0

#30 16-09-2008 07:17PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

Several points here.

Aueillo I take STRONG objection to you posting coments of personal abuse vs. constructive criticism in this matter.

To me it strikes me as petty bitchiness on your part aimed at the person and not the issue. On that point, you have already irritated me, if you want people to look at your case impartially, then you need to present it maturely. You haven't and you've lost ground already.

Now the issue.

Have you read the charter?

From some of your posts it seems that either you have not or you have an have ignored it. But that is just my impression in the way you approach topics, less debate and more repetition.

Whether you disagree or not with the style of moderation of Politics, you have to live under them in the forum when you decide to post. They can be reviewed, they have been many times, but breaking them, entering into personal insults with a moderator and THEN complaining about how the forum is moderated isn't the chian of escalation for such things.

Secondly, we all have opinions in politics. We wouldn't be posting if we didn't. It is easy to see "impartiality" when the person who bans you for breaking the rules was disagreeing with you 5 minutes ago. But the fact of the matter is, if you break the rules, it doesn't matter who steps in to moderate.

0

#31 16-09-2008 08:37PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

Aueillo I take STRONG objection to you posting coments of personal abuse vs. constructive criticism in this matter.

To me it strikes me as petty bitchiness on your part aimed at the person and not the issue. On that point, you have already irritated me, if you want people to look at your case impartially, then you need to present it maturely. .

What I have done is to post the opinions of others. it's not "my" case, but their opinions.

I think their issue, reading their opinions, is very much that the issue is the person.

GuanYin wrote: »

Whether you disagree or not with the style of moderation of Politics, you have to live under them in the forum when you decide to post.

This is about the opinions of a number of people, as expressed by the opinions which they, themselves, have written and which I ahve reproduced. The very point I am making is that they have decided not to post, for the reasons they, themselves, explain.

GuanYin wrote: »

It is easy to see "impartiality" when the person who bans you for breaking the rules was disagreeing with you 5 minutes ago. But the fact of the matter is, if you break the rules, it doesn't matter who steps in to moderate.

I agree with you that, in the case of some who have been banned, there might be an element of sour grapes. As far as I am aware, I have not been banned and nor have the majority whose quotes appear above. On the contrary, the very point is they have decided to no longer contribute, for the reasons explained above.

We can all choose to ignore what these people have said, and to ignore their opinion of their experiences. That's a choice we all have to make for ourselves.

Choices, of course have consequences, and one consequence of ignoring them is that they no longer wish to participate in the politics forums. We know thats true of the people who expressed their opinions above, and it's probable that it's also true for others who voted with their feet without bothering to express their opinion.

As was said earlier, it's not going to affect my life much or, I imagine, theirs.

An interesting exercise might be to actually explore the issues with all those listed above in a discreet way, say by private message, to properly assess what they think, and to try to see what substance is behind their public posts, and to see to what extent members are put off posting to those threads. It might be uncomfortable, or it might establish they are all cranks. Either way, it occurs to me that it might be especially worth exploring with those guys listed above, who have thousands of posts on
boards, as that indicates they have a track record in other forums, and you could check out with the mods on those forums how valuable their input into this problem might be, thus eliminating the "usual suspects" and troublemakers.

In any case, for the most part I enjoy boards, think that its a good site on the whole, and enjoy reading and sometimes participating in other forums.

0

#32 16-09-2008 08:39PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

auerillo wrote: »

What I have done is to post the opinions of others. it's not "my" case, but their opinions.

I think their issue, reading their opinions, is very much that the issue is the person.

In which case your arguement is "I/we don't like the person" to which my response is:

"I don't care".

My involvement in reviewing this issue or any issue of those mentioned is closed until they learn to approach the issues without taking personal shots.

Modding isn't a popularity contest. If it were, I wouldn't be a mod.

0

#33 16-09-2008 09:00PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

In which case your arguement is "I/we don't like the person" to which my response is:

"I don't care".

My involvement in reviewing this issue or any issue of those mentioned is closed until they learn to approach the issues without taking personal shots.

Modding isn't a popularity contest. If it were, I wouldn't be a mod.

Speaking personally, my argument is emphatically not that I don't like the person. My argument is I don't like certain aspects of his behaviour.

Because the common theme among their opinions is that the issue is an individuals behaviour, it seems impossible to bring that up without mentioning certain personal aspects of his behaviour, as that is the very aspect which concerns them.

Having read the opinions, as written, of those which I quoted, many don't say that the reason they no longer post in the politics threads do so because they don't like the person, but say quite clearly they find aspects of his behaviour unacceptable.

With so many offering that opinion, there seems to be a pattern. Of course one can decide that we are all troublemakers and should be ignored.

Although with a number of threads in Feedback on the same issue, (and with the sheer volume of members contributing similar opinions to those threads), and also a number here in the Help Desk (where no one is allowed to add to the thread), and with a fairly constant number in the politics threads and with OB himself saying he is tired of dealing with number of similar complaints, it does seem to point to it being more than a couple of troublemakers.

0

#34 06-10-2008 08:44PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

CC Seamus (as Helpdesk SMOD who reviewed previous complaints).

Hi auerillo,

You have been banned from Politics for the following duration:

Indefinite.

for the following reason:

Unsolicited PMs/spamming Politics forum users about the forum moderation and the other reasons I outlined in the Infraction post.

You are unwilling to accept that there are proper channels involved in forum issues and indeed, you seem unwilling to accept the judgement passed in these channels.

It is my belief that you do not or will not accept forum moderation and believe your actions will only escalate to disrupt the forum. As such, your access ha sbeen removed until such time that my belief stated above is changed.

Providing your ban is not permanent, it will be lifted automatically after Permanent.
Also, please be aware that an abusive response to this automated message may result in an extension of your ban, or in extreme cases, being banned from the entire site.

Thanks,

- GuanYin.

[/quote]

auerillo wrote: »

Re: OB Help Desk and Feedback forums
As a post script to our correspondence, I've had a number of posts from members mentioning that OB has not been abusive, rude or nasty since the threads appeared in the Help Desk and Feedback forums. Whether its a coincidence, whether someone did have a word with him, or whether the sheer weight of the evidence made him stop and think, lets hope it will be a permanent chance for the better and lets hope the politics threads can become more interesting and welcoming places, and thanks again for your help.

I quote the above message from the member GuanYin, and, following it, the message, which I sent to some members, to thank them for their help, and with which he seems to find enough fault to ban a member from the politics threads, and let members come to their own conclusions about it. I am posting this in the helpdesk section and the feedback section.

0

#35 06-10-2008 08:50PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

I received complaints from members about you spamming them.

You got banned.

Is there anything else that needs clarifying?

0

#36 06-10-2008 08:59PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

I received complaints from members about you spamming them.

You got banned.

Is there anything else that needs clarifying?

I wasn't aware that sending one private message to some members, all of whom had expressed their views on the subject in question, thanking them for their help, was "spamming", and can only apologise for what must be such a serious breach of the rules to warrant an indefinite ban.

0

#37 06-10-2008 09:02PM

Gordon

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 34513

aurellio, for future reference, please don't post any PMs that you receive from people up on a public forum without checking with the user that sent you the PM. Thanks.

0

#38 06-10-2008 09:12PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

Gordon, I wasn't asked, but for the record I have no issue with autogenerated infraction or ban moderation PMs being posted, for the sake of clarity.

Auerillo, I have no problem with you communicating with people on the issue when they are willingly or knowingly involved, however here we have multiple instances of posters who neither agreed with your campaign nor wished nor consented to be contacted by you, yet who were spammed with PMs.

In any forum I moderate, such an act gets (and has gotten, you can check the record, particularly in soccer) a ban.

The fact that you seem to be attempting (despite your wording) to labor an issue which has been resolved by everyone but you sees this as an indefinite ban.

I am willing to remove the ban in the future with the proper assurances to conduct and behavior, but until I receive these, the ban will stay in place.

If the CMODs, SMODs or Admins take issue with my action, please let me know.

0

#39 06-10-2008 09:21PM

Gordon

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 34513

GuanYin wrote: »

Gordon, I wasn't asked, but for the record I have no issue with autogenerated infraction or ban moderation PMs being posted, for the sake of clarity.

OK thanks, I'll unedit it then. For future reference, I'll probably forget that you specifically don't mind this so I may edit future posts like this again.

0

#40 06-10-2008 09:33PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

Gordon, I wasn't asked, but for the record I have no issue with autogenerated infraction or ban moderation PMs being posted, for the sake of clarity.

Auerillo, I have no problem with you communicating with people on the issue when they are willingly or knowingly involved, however here we have multiple instances of posters who neither agreed with your campaign nor wished nor consented to be contacted by you, yet who were spammed with PMs.

In any forum I moderate, such an act gets (and has gotten, you can check the record, particularly in soccer) a ban.

The fact that you seem to be attempting (despite your wording) to labor an issue which has been resolved by everyone but you sees this as an indefinite ban.

I am willing to remove the ban in the future with the proper assurances to conduct and behavior, but until I receive these, the ban will stay in place.

If the CMODs, SMODs or Admins take issue with my action, please let me know.

It wasn't "PM's" plural, but one message to some who contributed to, and showed interest in, the topic, the text of which appears above. The one pm wasn't rude, pejorative, or inciting, it was a polite message of thanks, and a positive message, expressing a hope that things have improved.

It's hard to see why sending someone one message should provoke such a reaction, except in the circumstance where a member has expressed a wish to not receive messages. (One member did reply that he no longer wished to receive messages, and I replied politely, saying that I would no longer send him messages, except where he messaged me and specifically asked for a response).

I don't know what the definition of spamming, (the reason you banned me) is, although don't imagine that one polite private message, the text of which is above, can reasonably be defined as "spamming".

If you define spamming as sending one polite and relevant message, as above, to some members who had previously expressed an interest, to be "spamming", then so be it.

0

#41 06-10-2008 09:38PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

auerillo wrote: »

It wasn't "PM's" plural, but one message to some who contributed to, and showed interest in, the topic, the text of which appears above. The one pm wasn't rude, pejorative, or inciting, it was a polite message of thanks, and a positive message, expressing a hope that things have improved.

It's hard to see why sending someone one message should provoke such a reaction, except in the circumstance where a member has expressed a wish to not receive messages. (One member did reply that he no longer wished to receive messages, and I replied politely, saying that I would no longer send him messages, except where he messaged me and specifically asked for a response).

I don't know what the definition of spamming, (the reason you banned me) is, although don't imagine that one polite private message, the text of which is above, can reasonably be defined as "spamming".

If you define spamming as sending one polite and relevant message, as above, to some members who had previously expressed an interest to be "spamming", then so be it.

I have two posters who are unhappy that they received your PM, didn't ask for a PM to be sent to them and did not feel your PM represented their views.

That is pretty much what I define as spam.

You seem to be unrepenting on this, so I don't really see much more to discuss. If you change your attitude and wish to enter into corresponence on the terms I outlined above or if a higher authority directs me to review the ban, please let me know.

0

#42 08-10-2008 07:28PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

I have two posters who are unhappy that they received your PM, didn't ask for a PM to be sent to them and did not feel your PM represented their views.

That is pretty much what I define as spam.

You seem to be unrepenting on this, so I don't really see much more to discuss. If you change your attitude and wish to enter into corresponence on the terms I outlined above or if a higher authority directs me to review the ban, please let me know.

You obviously feel strongly about sending private messages to members without them “wishing or consented to be contacted”. I’m not at all sure how one is expected to know if someone is “wishing” to be sent a private message, or how one knows, or can even find out, whether or not one wants to “be contacted”.

It seems hard to believe that all other members, when sending a private message, first find out if the recipient wants to receive it. Or even how the recipient knows if he wants to receive it without first knowing the content of the message.

Certainly, it has never occurred to me, when I have received a private message, to complain on either basis, even if I thought the message did, or didn’t, agree with my views.

It also never occurred to consider that one private message of thanks, regarding a subject on which one had previously expressed an interest, could be considered spam.

If the content of the message was rude, or aggressive, or was a personal attack, one can understand, but a polite message of thanks?

I’ve been contacted by a number of members who have juxtaposed your decision to ban one member for sending a polite message of thanks, the text of which is in a previous post above, with your decision to dismiss the expressed views of over 30 other members who have complained about another member, who they consider has been rude, aggressive, and bullying to them.

As mentioned earlier, it’s not going to affect my life much, or I imagine theirs, and, as usual, members will have to decide for themselves about the fairness of your decision to ban the former, and dismiss the latter.

0

#43 08-10-2008 07:31PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

auerillo wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, it’s not going to affect my life much, or I imagine theirs, and, as usual, members will have to decide for themselves about the fairness of your decision to ban the former, and dismiss the latter.

Great. Then we've resolved the issue.

0

#44 27-03-2009 01:50PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

While having a discussion about the helpdesk thread, we suddenly and without warning have the following input from OB.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow. I can't believe you're still making an issue about not getting your way.

You made a complaint, it was deemed to be unfounded. Get over it.

The post is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, and the whole tone, and accusatory manner of the input, seems more designed just to inflame and bully and it is the first post he made in the thread.

It is yet more evidence why many guys on this site do not engage with or interact with OB, or rarely take part in the forums where he moderates.

0

#45 27-03-2009 01:52PM

GuanYin

Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 14305

auerillo wrote: »

It is yet more evidence why many guys on this site do not engage with or interact with OB, or rarely take part in the forums where he moderates.

How many feedback posters rushed to your support?

0

#46 01-04-2009 05:53PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

GuanYin wrote: »

How many feedback posters rushed to your support?

I was contacted by a number of members who asked me to stop posting there as it was pointless and was not going to go anywhere, and said they themselves did no contribute to such threads as they feared being labelled a troublemaker by some moderators. They also said that the replies to the points I was making were being met with, in the words of one correspondent "obtuse answers designed to avoid answering the point and deflecting away from the issue".

Some made the same observation that it's ok for a moderator (for example tbh) to hurl abuse and call another member a "bull****ter" with impunity, whereas another juxtaposed his recent banning from the politics forum for a "breach of the charter", saying "it seems ok for moderators to use foul language directed at members".

As has been said before, many members now feel that it's pointless discussing these issues as they feel that the moderators will not take their views seriously, and some hold the view, rightly or wrongly, that in these helpdesk threads a number of mods etc will gang up on a single complaining member.

Many members vote with their feet and no longer contribute to the sort of threads, for example politics, where moderators are thought to over-moderate and treat adults with contempt and with a lack of respect.

Looking at the politics threads now, I can't help noticing how little posting goes on there, with only one thread under the "European union" section having any activity at all today, and all the other threads in that section having no activity whatever today.

Not having read the threads there for a long time, and reading the threads now, it's also evident that newcomers do try to post there, but for reasons they don't explain give up posting very quickly and stop posting after a short while.

It's been said before that the politics threads seem, to an onlooker, to be a shadow of their former selves. Certainly the many members listed elsewhere in this thread no longer post there, and most have not done so for some time. The evidence upon reading the threads seems to suggest that new posters cease to post after quite a short time, and seems to be a consistent pattern.

If boards.ie wanted to find out why these new posters do that, they could always message them and ask why they stopped posting. I hope they do that to find out why the politics forum is so moribund, but suspect that it will not happen because they are afraid of the answer. I hope I am wrong and look forward to a time when the politics forums here thrive again, as I know boards.ie is full of mainly wonderful people, both mods and members.

0

#47 02-04-2009 06:19AM

sceptre

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 17984

Hi auerillo

A few things, in split order.

Firstly, in this thread it looks as though you're trying to drag up an old argument, months after it was effectively ruled on. You even posted it in the same thread.

Secondly, providing a link to the thread you're referring to three posts up would help greatly, I went through seven threads looking for the thread you're referring to. Eventually I got a little more wise and just searched through your posts alone but links make it easier for all concerned.

Thirdly, making reference to "a number of members" that have contacted you is a bit of a fudge. Having worked in the journalism sphere as a press officer, a journalist and an editor of a small circulation newspaper covering a population of a medium-sized town, I've been in the spin game enough for the phrase "a number" to jump out at me. I don't have a problem with all or any of that number PMing me to verify your claims. I'm only interested in your personal experiences in the absence of that as hearsay isn't a kind of evidence. Ditto with the three "many members" paragraphs.

Fourthly, while the politics subforums go through ebbs and flows depending on the news cycle and interest (it's part of the reason they exist as subforums), the politics forum as a whole is far busier now than it has ever been. While there's always room for improvement, like everything else that exists, and that's something the politics mods are always actively considering in some way, it's never been anywhere near as busy as it has been for the past few months. New users often tend to drop in to make a comment in a thread because it's just appeared on the front page when they've logged on to boards. That's the way boards.ie works. You're placing an emphasis on the one-time posters that doesn't correlate with the way the site works and how casual users use the site.

Fifthly, dealing with the substance of your recent complaint, the moderator in question (with whom I've not had a conversation since before both your complaint and the subject of your complaint), it rather appears on the Feedback thread that you are trying to drag up an old argument that had been ruled on. I'm perfectly willing to state that in my opinion that's what you were doing.

Sixthly, the "bull****ter" comment you're referring to was made by another mod. And was commented on by an admin in the Feedback thread. That's rather more important than what some said. It's one of the last posts in that thread.

Seventhly, you obviously have an issue with oB or the way he moderates. You've objected to that before. I've noted your objections. I don't agree with them.

0

#48 02-04-2009 07:10AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

I have no idea what "it was ruled on" means, and I have never sought some sort of judicial ruling.

On a boards forum such as this, members vote with their feet, and the fact that someone somewhere might have decided that they are wrong or right really has no bearing on them or the issue. I started this thread to draw attention to the fact that many members cite OB's behaviour as the reason that they no longer post in politics, and to suggest that someone somewhere can make a ruling which means that they are all wrong, seems reminiscent of the politburo ruling that the recently failed harvest was a great success!

I added to this thread after OB made unkind, irrelevant and personal remarks at me in another thread, which prompted me to have another look at politics to see what's happened since I added my name to those who no longer post there.

I'm not really going to go into the pantomime of "oh yes he did oh no he didn't", and again leave it to members to decide for themselves whether, for example, that newcomers do try to post there, but for reasons they don't explain give up posting very quickly and stop posting after a short while.

As we know from their own words, and quoted above, in addition to the new members mentioned above, many members previously have cited OB's behaviour as the reason they no longer post in the politics forum, and politics is a poorer place for that.

0

#49 02-04-2009 07:25AM

sceptre

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 17984

Politburo comment aside, one of the primary purposes of the Help Desk is to make a call or ruling on whether a complaint has merit.

I've made reference to the rest of your comments in my last post.

0

#50 02-04-2009 07:45AM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

sceptre wrote: »

Politburo comment aside, one of the primary purposes of the Help Desk is to make a call or ruling on whether a complaint has merit.

I've made reference to the rest of your comments in my last post.

The point is that every member who contemplates it makes their own "ruling".

It is a fact that many have cited OB's behaviour as the reason they no longer take part in politics, and no amount of rulings by anyone else can deny that or affect that. (If you want to see the evidence of which members have cited OB's behaviour, many are named and quoted earlier in this thread).

Simply by saying someone somewhere has made a "ruling" doesn't address that fact, and all the while it appears, from observation, the same pattern continues in politics.

0

#51 27-08-2009 09:57PM

auerillo

Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 333

Having not been on boards for a while, I an sad to see that OB is still being cited by members as the reason they no longer take part in the Politics forums.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055659498

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055653881

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055576099&highlight=oscar+bravo

It is sad that members are still treated as children by the moderator, and sadder that boards.ie still seems to prefer to back up a moderator at the expense of interesting debate.

How many other members have decided to vote with their feet, and avoid the politics forums for fear of being treated in the same manner, is not known. What is certain is that many members (over 50 members as evidenced by this thread) no longer contribute to the politics forums due to the behaviour of this moderator, many of whom are intelligent, interesting and polite, and have decided to no longer participate in the politics forums and cite the reason, in their own words (see previous posts in this thread) as the behaviour of Oscar Bravo.

0

Complaint about EU forum moderation.

Comments