Feedback Mods

[Chief]

I got two posts deleted tonight for absolutely no reason. Yet this one is allowed to stay.

Which one??? We keep pointing out to you that we can't do anything until you actually give us information. But you keep plugging away with vague references to threads and posts that you claim can be compared to ones you had removed.

Use the report post button. End of story.

 

[Chief]

JD has some very valid points. The whole vet thing carries no weight anymore. I remember reading in one of the stickies "older members will be treated differently" something along those lines. You get carded by someone that has been here for a year or two for a comment that is clearly a bigfooty traditional joke.

See my response to JD - he's gotten a fair bit of leniency for his trolling over the years.

I can see this coming to an end though.

Secondly, if it was a harmless joke it would be ignored. If it is carded get in touch with the mod and explain the situation.

Something along these lines might see the card reversed:
"Sorry about that mate, it's a long-running joke (give a few links) and I didn't mean anything by it. Could I get a warning instead of a card?"

 

[JeffDunne]

Dude you have an infraction list 4 pages long. Even so, mods have gone EASY on you, with at least the last 3 serious infractions being 2nd level - by rights you should have lost your account months ago. You're a long-term user and so you get breaks from most mods.

What an absolute load of tripe.

Firstly, most of those infractions are completely bogus. 4 pages? WTF does that mean in terms of number?

The last 3 or 4 have been for pointing out the inappropriate nature of threads on Bay 13 (in fact most of my infractions have been on that board - bay 13 FFS). Apparently calling people rapists is fine, terms like St FloodRape, St StatutoryRape, etc are perfectly acceptable (I know this because the mods were the people doing & defending it), yet quoting board & site rules to respond to mods participating in such filth is worth a serious infraction?

Not to mention the "serious" infractions I got for posting a pro-Brisbane comment on the Brisbane board and the subsequent "serious" infraction on the Veterans board that another mod had to overturn giving it was so petty - all because I pointed out the obvious trolling this mod was doing on the main board.

That's sort of the issue Chief if you actually listened to people's complaints and took 5 secs to give a shit.

You have nothing to complain about but, as my Dad was fond of saying, keep it up and I'll GIVE you something to complain about.

Feel better now? I knew the standard GFY response wasn't far away.

Actually that sentence explains so much.

The old man wasn't a christian by any chance?

 

[JeffDunne]

See my response to JD - he's gotten a fair bit of leniency for his trolling over the years.

Would you care to provide some examples?

BTW, that doesn't include threads where you've jumped in with this accusation before only to be shown it wasn't me doing the trolling.

Ask your dad about assumptions - he might have a saying for that too.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Experience tells us that when somebody claims they are infracted for nothing, that is usually the manner of that nothing that earns them the infraction. We usually do not capture that manner in the retelling.

 

[JeffDunne]

Experience tells us that when somebody claims they are infracted for nothing, that is usually the manner of that nothing that earns them the infraction. We usually do not capture that manner in the retelling.

What's to re-tell?

Can't you just read the thread?

Face it ODN, mods like to bait and they encourage other posters from their board to also bait. The Collingwood board for instance has a thread highlighting comments made about Collingwood elsewhere. It becomes a pack mentality - often with threads encouraging others to go attack another board.

All utterly childish and encourages trolling and baiting that is carried from board to board. Team board mods do nothing to discourage it - in fact they do quite the opposite and encourage it!

Team interests ahead of reasoned discussion is rife - even to the point mods will card someone if they feel they are embarrassing their team.

Personality driven and childish parochialism is the norm in BF moderation.

 

[smiddaz123]

Face it ODN, mods like to bait and they encourage other posters from their board to also bait. The Collingwood board for instance has a thread highlighting comments made about Collingwood elsewhere. It becomes a pack mentality - often with threads encouraging others to go attack another board.

Nowhere in this thread is anyone encouraged to go to the opposing board and bait.

 

[JeffDunne]

Nowhere in this thread is anyone encouraged to go to the opposing board and bait.

Nowhere in my post did I say it did.

It is a thread designed to take the piss out of other posters & encouraging people to use those posts when 'debating' those people elsewhere. i.e. trolling material.

That would be a natural consequence would it not?

Team board moderators allow opposition supporters to be slagged even if they have never posted on that team board. ODN & the Carlton mods are classics for it.

I'm sure you know the formula.

Poster baits opposition supporter.

Opposition supporter replies.

Pack forms, all baiting the opposition poster.

Mod issues card, does a victory lap & fist pump, the people doing the baiting then blow wind up said mod's arse.

Rinse and repeat.

If you've been fortunate enough to show up a team board mod elsewhere - you might even be lucky enough to having you're own baiting threads on the team board.

 

[smiddaz123]

Nowhere in my post did I say it did.

It is a thread designed to take the piss out of other posters & encouraging people to use those posts when 'debating' those people elsewhere. i.e. trolling material.

That would be a natural consequence would it not?

It's a light hearted thread where a few posts that heavily contradict themselves are posted. It's hardly encouraging anyone to go across to opposing boards and bait them.

FWIW every day I read plenty of posts that could be infracted, but are dealt with leniently. If mods were really that desperate to card people, you'd see a lot more red names around the place, because there isn't a lack of opportunity.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What's to re-tell?

Can't you just read the thread?

In the retelling of why infractions were received. Yes, some are given because of a lack of comprehension and context, but not all. Without knowing the details of your infractions, I would bet London to the brick, that they weren't all as innocent as you suggest. Some maybe, some not, some where reputation was a motivating factor, some that might be deliberately ambiguous. For example, the Carlton board (that has never infracted you if memory serves me correctly) clearly states that it is not up to us to interpret intent. If it can be taken the wrong way, the onus is on the poster to be very clear or not post it. Maybe that has been a factor on other boards?

Face it ODN, mods like to bait and they encourage other posters from their board to also bait. The Collingwood board for instance has a thread highlighting comments made about Collingwood elsewhere. It becomes a pack mentality - often with threads encouraging others to go attack another board.

All utterly childish and encourages trolling and baiting that is carried from board to board. Team board mods do nothing to discourage it - in fact they do quite the opposite and encourage it!

Team interests ahead of reasoned discussion is rife - even to the point mods will card someone if they feel they are embarrassing their team.

Personality driven and childish parochialism is the norm in BF moderation.

A lot of mods on BF these days. Most of them do not set out to troll in any way in my experience. Some need to adjust from their pre-mod demeanour but that is normal. I can't think of any instance where a mod on BF has encouraged others to go forward and troll another team. Most warn against it and tell you that you are on your own if you do it.

The Bay is a different situation and takes a bit of getting your head around. Here trolling is encouraged by mods, but linking to or going to other boards is discouraged, basically because we don't want people to stop posting things in the safety of their own team boards, because someone is seeking to use it as material to gain some credibility on the Bay. The Bay mods regularly remind people of this rule.

The Carlton board had a thread about what others said about us too. In fact I started the thread. We were under siege and it was a good way to bring everyone together, inspire solidarity, and get some satisfaction when people that had trolled us were shown to be wrong. I see it as a good way to build your team community, uniting for a common cause instead of infighting about which players are duds and when the coach should be sacked. Not a long wrong with this approach in my book.

 

[JeffDunne]

In the retelling of why infractions were received. Yes, some are given because of a lack of comprehension and context, but not all. Without knowing the details of your infractions, I would bet London to the brick, that they weren't all as innocent as you suggest. Some maybe, some not, some where reputation was a motivating factor, some that might be deliberately ambiguous. For example, the Carlton board (that has never infracted you if memory serves me correctly) clearly states that it is not up to us to interpret intent. If it can be taken the wrong way, the onus is on the poster to be very clear or not post it. Maybe that has been a factor on other boards?



A lot of mods on BF these days. Most of them do not set out to troll in any way in my experience. Some need to adjust from their pre-mod demeanour but that is normal. I can't think of any instance where a mod on BF has encouraged others to go forward and troll another team. Most warn against it and tell you that you are on your own if you do it.

The Bay is a different situation and takes a bit of getting your head around. Here trolling is encouraged by mods, but linking to or going to other boards is discouraged, basically because we don't want people to stop posting things in the safety of their own team boards, because someone is seeking to use it as material to gain some credibility on the Bay. The Bay mods regularly remind people of this rule.

The Carlton board had a thread about what others said about us too. In fact I started the thread. We were under siege and it was a good way to bring everyone together, inspire solidarity, and get some satisfaction when people that had trolled us were shown to be wrong. I see it as a good way to build your team community, uniting for a common cause instead of infighting about which players are duds and when the coach should be sacked. Not a long wrong with this approach in my book.

You started off so well ODN. For a minute there you were convincing.

Who is "we" exactly?

And FWIW, I bet if I searched the term "JeffDunne" on both the Collingwood & Carlton boards I bet there's a heap of threads bagging me personally.

What exactly is the point of those posts/threads?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You started off so well ODN. For a minute there you were convincing.

Who is "we" exactly?

Would be the team whose board I moderate on I would think. I have the greater duty of care to that board than I do to anyone else.

And FWIW, I bet if I searched the term "JeffDunne" on both the Collingwood & Carlton boards I bet there's a heap of threads bagging me personally.

What exactly is the point of those posts/threads?

You probably have a greater reputation for being excessively critical of both these teams, and of lacking objectivity on many issues in relation to them. I am not sure if you expect people not to notice, or if you expect protection when you skirt the boundary between discussion and trolling a fair bit. The fact that it is more than one set of team board mods that have noticed this, possibly lends itself to this theory. It certainly is not because we are having regular mod meetings in relation to yourself. I'd suggest that any such posts that exist would refer to their opinion that the anonymous internet persona known as 'JeffDunne' tends to troll a lot, rather than just post after post of personal abuse.

I'm thinking this point is going to be laboured and I do not wish to continue it in this thread. Suffice to say, the jury seems to have come back with a verdict it is comfortable with, and a definitive sentencing appears to have been left up in the air based on rules technicalities. There is no future in carrying it on I wouldn't have thought.

There is something to be said for Chief's response. It certainly ends discussions that really aren't up for negotiation.

 

[JeffDunne]

Would be the team whose board I moderate on I would think. I have the greater duty of care to that board than I do to anyone else.

I don't understand. The Carlton board was under siege?

That reply doesn't really make sense in the context of the post I quoted.

You probably have a greater reputation for being excessively critical of both these teams, and of lacking objectivity on many issues in relation to them.

And someone who feels "under siege" when their club is criticised is?

Don't know if you've noticed ODN, but there's been a lot to be critical of in relation to Carlton since I joined BF.

As someone prepared to defend every last issue to the death and running around screaming "troll" to anyone that didn't agree - I don't really think you should be lecturing on objectivity.

Regardless, even if I lack objectivity, how is having and expressing an opinion "trolling"?

Find me examples of said trolling (on boards where it's prohibited) and then talk to me. Whenever challenged you can't, so who exactly is the troll here? Even more so when you're creating threads specifically to attack people who you perceive as anti-Carlton?

I am not sure if you expect people not to notice, or if you expect protection when you skirt the boundary between discussion and trolling a fair bit.

Should be easy to find examples hey?

The fact that it is more than one set of team board mods that have noticed this, possibly lends itself to this theory.

Yet I haven't been denied access from one team board (the Brisbane episode the only time being card IIRC & that was total bullshit). In fact I rarely post on team boards - including the St Kilda board. So this can't be coming from those boards.

Sounds to me like there's a pack of team mods bringing their personal bias from the main board, using it the first chance they get & drumming up support from fellow team posters for support to return fire - which I think is the point I'm trying to highlight.

Thanks for the admission .

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't understand. The Carlton board was under siege?

That reply doesn't really make sense in the context of the post I quoted.

Read it again, the team whose board I moderate.

And someone who feels "under siege" when their club is criticised is?

Relevance. There are levels of criticism and seldom is it equal across the board. Rather than have our posters respond and get themselves in trouble on other boards, I tried something for them to keep their frustration in house on the Carlton board. Not that there is anything to gain by explaining this to you.

Don't know if you've noticed ODN, but there's been a lot to be critical of in relation to Carlton since I joined BF.

As someone prepared to defend every last issue to the death and running around screaming "troll" to anyone that didn't agree - I don't really think you should be lecturing on objectivity.

Regardless, even if I lack objectivity, how is having and expressing an opinion "trolling"?

Find me examples of said trolling (on boards where it's prohibited) and then talk to me. Whenever challenged you can't, so who exactly is the troll here? Even more so when you're creating threads specifically to attack people who you perceive as anti-Carlton?


Should be easy to find examples hey?


Yet I haven't been denied access from one team board (the Brisbane episode the only time being card IIRC & that was total bullshit). In fact I rarely post on team boards - including the St Kilda board. So this can't be coming from those boards.

Sounds to me like there's a pack of team mods bringing their personal bias from the main board, using it the first chance they get & drumming up support from fellow team posters for support to return fire - which I think is the point I'm trying to highlight.

Thanks for the admission .

Yeah whatever. Your denials only serve to highlight how some things will never change. Mods do not need to drum up support from their team board posters to go after persons that are known to troll their team. They all know it without our input.

The fact that you have now developed this persecution complex probably highlights that nothing would ever change and they probably pegged you right.

This is not the place for one of our patented never ending discussions JD. I tried to generically offer advice in this thread, but as usual you think you know what goes on behind the scenes and consider yourself a victim. There is nothing more to be said really.

 

[JeffDunne]

Mods do not need to drum up support from their team board posters to go after persons that are known to troll their team. They all know it without our input.

So remind me, what was the purpose of that thread again?

There is nothing more to be said really.

Other than the standard locked, carded & gutless condescending quip.

I mean fancy giving 'feedback' on a board asking for it?

Where exactly is the conversation relevant? I once tried having it with you via PM, but such was you personal bias you dismissed it as a 'troll'.

Rather strange too that you've never carded me, never even warned me viq PM. Yet you always feel the need to post wherever I make comment, especially in these type of threads. I see too you avoided that request for proof of this ever present trolling.

Actually it's probably not that strange if you think about it in the context of my other posts.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The purpose of the thread was clearly explained. Stop being obtuse.

You are not after feedback in this thread. You are whinging about perceived injustices against yourself and if someone tries to explain them, you turn it into an argument. That is not the purpose of the suggestions board. You do not have to agree with the feedback you received, but you are hardly going to change someone's mind by continuing on in the manner you do.

I think the fact that you behave yourself on the Carlton board, while being hyper critical on other boards, actually shows that you know what you are doing and where you are doing it, not merely putting forth innocent points of view as you so often claim.

You are not trying to engage moderators to seek an outcome. You are just being destabilising and exorcising some frustrations over issues that you and the moderators will always disagree on.

I feel entirely comfortable with any exchanges we have had or any opinions I hold as to those exchanges. Dredging them up now is just pandering to you and wasting my time.

 

[smiddaz123]

I see too you avoided that request for proof of this ever present trolling.

On that note, can you throw up any proof of any moderator encouraging their posters to troll opposing boards?

 

[raskolnikov]

FWIW every day I read plenty of posts that could be infracted, but are dealt with leniently. If mods were really that desperate to card people, you'd see a lot more red names around the place, because there isn't a lack of opportunity.

Which is one of my points exactly. There are some people that seem to get away with anything while others are infracted or their posts deleted for simply looking the wrong way. I seem to have been targeted lately and I'm not sure why since I've been a good user over the years. The only infractions I have are for silly misdemeanours(evading the swear filter etc).

It also seems to work on a team basis. It seems to be a very accepted view amongst mods that it is ok to troll Essendon. The amount of trolling over the last two weeks on the main board has been absurd. Suggesting that I report posts is ludicrous because there are just too many of them. It is up to the moderators when they see threads like I posted links to in a previous post in this thread to see that they cannot be good. Such threads belong on Bay 13 but they are regularly sent there if they are involve Essendon. Yet it is a crime to say anything remotely negative about Collingwood. I got a post deleted simply for saying that I would enjoy Collingwood losing in the finals. Yet these threads are allowed to exist.

 

[Fred]

It also seems to work on a team basis. It seems to be a very accepted view amongst mods that it is ok to troll Essendon. The amount of trolling over the last two weeks on the main board has been absurd.

It's not an accepted view at all. Each thread is dealt with on it's merit and I certainly don't keep track of whether this or that team is being trolled more.
You see anything Essendon in a different way than a non-Essendon supporter does yet when you post something about Collingwood that I considered a troll, you disagreed.

 

[raskolnikov]

It's not an accepted view at all. Each thread is dealt with on it's merit and I certainly don't keep track of whether this or that team is being trolled more.
You see anything Essendon in a different way than a non-Essendon supporter does yet when you post something about Collingwood that I considered a troll, you disagreed.

So can you justify to me why those threads I outlined above weren't considered trolling yet my post was? Cheers.

 

[grizzlym]

Which is one of my points exactly. There are some people that seem to get away with anything while others are infracted or their posts deleted for simply looking the wrong way. I seem to have been targeted lately and I'm not sure why since I've been a good user over the years. The only infractions I have are for silly misdemeanours(evading the swear filter etc).

I got a post deleted simply for saying that I would enjoy Collingwood losing in the finals.

That is a disingenuous comment. Even though you never contacted me re the deleted posts, I contacted you yesterday, explained why the mod had deleted the posts, and that it was nothing to do with what you had posted but it was because your posts quoted the those of a recently booted user. That is standard practice and I explained that to you.

But don't let any of that get in the way of your agenda.

 

[raskolnikov]

That is a disingenuous comment. Even though you never contacted me re the deleted posts, I contacted you yesterday, explained why the mod had deleted the posts, and that it was nothing to do with what you had posted but it was because your posts quoted the those of a recently booted user. That is standard practice and I explained that to you.

But don't let any of that get in the way of your agenda.

One of the posts may have been deleted for quoting an a banned user, but I can't even think of that one. It doesn't explain the other four or five posts that I have had deleted.

 

[Fred]

In the McLelland Trophy thread, you made four posts. The first was deleted by me and the others quoted motv8 aliases.

 

[JeffDunne]

It's a light hearted thread where a few posts that heavily contradict themselves are posted. It's hardly encouraging anyone to go across to opposing boards and bait them.

Not sure why you keep on this "opposing boards" theme. My problem with what happens in these threads on team boards is that encourages trolling on the main board. I rarely post on team boards and I'm sure the pack mentality on those boards usually makes up for anything missed by mods.

Trolling team boards isn't an issue. I reckon anyone that's been here more than 5 minutes knows the boundaries. It is why the card I received on the Brisbane board was so pathetic. Actually it was straight out pettiness & childish by the mod in question.

ODN admitted the reason for the thread on his board was to provide ammunition for fellow supporters. Where exactly do you think this 'ammunition' is intended for use?

FWIW every day I read plenty of posts that could be infracted, but are dealt with leniently. If mods were really that desperate to card people, you'd see a lot more red names around the place, because there isn't a lack of opportunity.

And again, you are validating the fundamental problem and the source of people's frustration.

Mod's pick and choose who to card based on their personal opinion of the person posting it - not necessarily the content of the post.

If a mod perceives you as anti their team, they'll take the first opportunity regardless of how minor the breach. Other posts that are clearly in breach of the rules - some that even go beyond bad taste - are left or simply edited without a card.

TBH, I'm staggered by this admission from you. It 100% backs up the questions being asked of mods in this thread.

 

[JeffDunne]

The purpose of the thread was clearly explained.

It was long before you entered the thread.

Remind me, why did you enter the thread?

Stop being obtuse.

There's that objectivity again that you are so famous for.

I feel entirely comfortable with any exchanges we have had or any opinions I hold as to those exchanges. Dredging them up now is just pandering to you and wasting my time.

So much easier to label someone a troll than it is to actually prove it . . .

Again we have seen in this thread how quickly you can turn a civil debate into personal potshots.