Mod mis-use of power?

[derrick]

Poll, or reopen it.

 

[fossyant]

Just a reminder of the first few rules that folk seem to forget. Apply this to the posts that get pulled !
Fairly obvious eh. If you don't like it - you know where the door is.

Guidelines to using CycleChat


CycleChat is a growing online community for cyclists. It is aimed at a general audience so to help us keep CycleChat a friendly place please follow these simple site usage guidelines:

• Respect - Please be respectful and considerate to other CycleChat members.
• Inappropriate conduct - Don't insult, bully, undermine, stalk, flame, troll, bait or otherwise harass other members of CycleChat. If a disagreement makes you angry, take a break and come back later when you are more composed.
• Inappropriate content - Do not post anything that is obscene, vulgar, contains sexual imagery or text, is racist (including slang), hateful, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate for a cycling forum. Common sense should guide you in this.
• Swearing - Don't overly use swear words (including using *'s or other shortcuts to indicate swear words) - it is unnecessary and undesirable.

 

[fossyant]

I've tidied that one up for you.

That one is next on the list.

 

[vernon]

Well, that's one way to look at it. The way I look at it is the guy obviously didn't like me (which is fine) and so he chose to use only some of what I had written which matched a few bits of his relatives life, who happens to have a disabled child, just to establish the moral high ground. Instead of banter it then instantly turned me into some kind of hater of disabled people and their families. I viewed it as a cheap shot and treated it as such. I think the guy got what he wanted, I don't see what I need to apologise about, so I apologise for that.

As so much of the thread was pure fabrication, the Bancroft posting could easily be interpreted as counter trolling measures. I for one didn't take his posting as being a serious one and anyone who was offended by proxy needs to ask why make the posting in the first place unless he's a member of the suffering by proxy community. Disability is no fun for some of the sufferers but why drag them into a thread with which they have no connection other than the poster's need to spread misery around? It has to be remembered that there was a considerable amount of (t)role play in the thread and BFF stayed in role.

I am not normally a grouch but some folk need to develop a thicker skin.

 

[Nantmor]

[QUOTE 1661298, member: 3143"]imo it was fairly obvious from an early stage that the bin thread was trolling.

[/quote]

I thought it was obvious trolling when I read the heading and the poster's name. I didn't bother to open it. I guess it was a sucessful troll, since the thread had so many posters.

 

[Dayvo]

Just a reminder of the first few rules that folk seem to forget.

• Inappropriate conduct - Don't insult, bully, undermine, stalk, flame, troll, bait or otherwise harass other members of CycleChat. If a disagreement makes you angry, take a break and come back later when you are more composed.

I agree with you, Fossy, but the above applies to BOTH mods and ordinary posters alike.

Some mods have a history of baiting and undermining other forumers. If they take their mods hats off during a thread, that's fine, but they shouldn't then able to pull 'rank' when the going gets tough and become all 'holier than thou' and act heavy-handed. In other words, how can a mod be neutral whilst being subjectively involved in a thread?

 

[ttcycle]

Where has this happened Dayvo?

Firstly, you are unhappy that I've pulled the thread as I haven't taken part in it and now you're questioning neutrality? The reason it was me that closed the thread was precisely due to me not being involved at any point. To clear something up, it's not often the case that decisions are made by one moderator alone- there's a lot of discussion and behind the scenes stuff that goes on. You posted a slew of stuff which was full of misunderstandings as Admin has pointed out. I accept your apology but moderation is not as you misunderstand it to be.

 

[Shaun]

I feel, on reflection, this could have been handled differently and have said as much in the mods fourm; but in future if anyone has a problem with the modding or with a specific moderator, then please just PM me. Then I can look into it.

Also, it would probably be best if people don't start wind-up (baiting) threads without making it very clear they are taking the Michael; because implying people have "no sense of humour" when they respond seriously to such threads is a poor excuse for baiting them in the first place - and the disparaging "character" comments on that thread were undoubtedly written specifically to draw people into responding seriously.

I'm going to head off for the day and spend it with my family (building flat-pack kids bedroom furnitue - wish me luck!!) so let me wish you all a happy new year, and hope you have a lovely day/evening.

See you all in 2012.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Dayvo]

Where has this happened Dayvo?

Firstly, you are unhappy that I've pulled the thread as I haven't taken part in it and now you're questioning neutrality? The reason it was me that closed the thread was precisely due to me not being involved at any point. To clear something up, it's not often the case that decisions are made by one moderator alone- there's a lot of discussion and behind the scenes stuff that goes on. You posted a slew of stuff which was full of misunderstandings as Admin has pointed out. I accept your apology but moderation is not as you misunderstand it to be.

Firstly I was surprised and disappointed that a popular thread had been pulled by a mod, disguised as PC Dixon. I sent, what I believed would be a direct sms to the mod concerned, asking for an explanation, which was not forthcoming, which then started to rile me, as the thread was an amusing and entertaining one.

I posted once on it, early on, and identified it as a wind-up. There was no hate or malice in it, but I understand there was a comment made by BFF, that unfortunately later upset a forumer.

It was only later that I found out you had pulled the thread, although that is irrelevant. I was most upset for being given a cooling down ban, which I felt was totally unjustified, seeing as all I did was ask for an explanation. I wrongly assumed you had banned me without having the decency to explain (something the other mod didn't do).

I'd like to know what the grounds were for the 'other' mod to ban me.

I am pleased you accepted my apology.

 

[brokenflipflop]

I thought it was obvious trolling when I read the heading and the poster's name. I didn't bother to open it. I guess it was a sucessful troll, since the thread had so many posters.

That's a bit unfair. My opening post wasn't a troll, it happened and I chucked in my opinion. Following on I entered into what I thought was banter and I thought was light-hearted and throughout I did maintain my stance about the bin facts and the bin men. And "the posters name", you're suggesting there that I'm a bit of a dick and..............yeah, Ok, fair comment.

 

[Dayvo]

OK, Shaun!

All understood and taken on board.

Have a great new year.

 

[Nantmor]

That's a bit unfair. My opening post wasn't a troll, it happened and I chucked in my opinion. Following on I entered into what I thought was banter and I thought was light-hearted and throughout I did maintain my stance about the bin facts and the bin men. And "the posters name", you're suggesting there that I'm a bit of a dick and..............yeah, Ok, fair comment.

As I say, I didn't bother to open the thread. `Maybe I was unfair, but look at the results of that first post.

 

[ttcycle]

More things to be clear about- the mod account doesn't get checked frequently- and as Admin has written already it wasn't a PM you'd sent (and if no-one is logged into the mod account it wouldn't get seen anyway) you posted on the moderator profile page which is even less likely to be seen. You weren't being ignored at all.

You recognise you got riled, probably for the wrong reasons and for misinterpreting processes. I can't speak for the banning but you weren't exactly a reasoned poster yesterday. You posted several comments about me and about moderation directly hinting at removing me as a mod which in light of your misunderstandings was well off the mark. Did you give people time to actually get back to you? It is Xmas/New Year after all and there are less of us modding in general. However, I could have retaliated and been unpleasant to you in public but what is the point in that as you really were just getting the wrong end of the stick and that's not the kind of person I am.

 

[potsy]

Is it still up for thread of the year?

 

[dellzeqq]

That's a bit unfair. My opening post wasn't a troll, it happened and I chucked in my opinion. Following on I entered into what I thought was banter and I thought was light-hearted and throughout I did maintain my stance about the bin facts and the bin men. And "the posters name", you're suggesting there that I'm a bit of a dick and..............yeah, Ok, fair comment.

see my thread on auctioning sig lines........