06/02/2010 11:22:17
TheGreenAndRed
County: Mayo
Posts: 95

553282
It was JuanVeron. Where did ye get RLF from?

Wrong

JuanVeron (Westmeath) - Posts: 1866 - 06/02/2010 19:55:45    553629

The following was written on another thread titled 'Musings of a poster'. It has been transferred to this thread to keep all relevant discussion in one place.


ruanua
County: Donegal
Posts: 2786

553357 In my opinion if a poster wishes to engage in direct correspondance to moderators of this or any forum then this is something they are entitled to do.
If this corrrespondance is petty or trivial then they are best to ignore it, if this correpondance is valid then they may or may not respond to the originator as they see fit. If the correspondance is offensive or abusive then I would think that they have to right to communicate back advising of their greviance and if appropriate
ban or bar that poster.

However I would not think that the moderators are entitled to openly publish correspondance that was not written for that purpose.
No matter how foolish, petty or trivial private correspondance is any approach in dealing with its should be through the same private channels.

At times we all make posts on this forum that may be reactive, maybe emotional, maybe made with a few beers on board, and these posts may or may not make us look foolish. However that is our own choice as we have elected to make those comments public.

In my opinion a poster no matter how much he or she is disliked should not be exposed to ridicule for writing something that was not intended for publication.
Even more concerning is the fact that the posters identity is known to other posters therefore the poster is being riducled in view of people who actually know this poster.

It just Ain't Cricket.
06/02/2010 14:20:27
Louth Gael
County: Louth
Posts: 85

553400 Well said, i agree 100%
06/02/2010 15:55:36
squidword
County: Louth
Posts: 1648

553458 The poster concerned was not satisfied to just have a go at the administrators he took a cheap pop at 99% of the users he interacted with behind their backs as well. Therefore I believe the administrators were right to make known the type of individual most of us interacted with at some time or another. Furthermore the administrators action serves as a stark warning to other users who may for whatever reasons choose to behave in a similar fashion.

The administrators IMO are entitled to take whatever action they deem appropriate in the relevant circumstances and I believe their actions in case were justified.

Squid
06/02/2010 16:46:39
TheGreenAndRed
County: Mayo
Posts: 95

553490 The Admins did right in my opinion. That e-mail was just a fraction of the rubbish they have to deal with, and by showing it to the members of Hoganstand, we can get some understanding of the amount of work they have to do to stamp out pettiness among a lot of posters on here. They are doing a great job, and I think that this site is the best around.

I believe the Admins don't get enough appreciation and get threads like this slapped in their face. They made a decision to publish an e-mail written by a guy who brandished them all as 'girls' and continued to ridicule the site. Why wouldn't they post it? If I was them, I'd be sick and tired of all the bruscair coming their way(and I'm sure they're sick and tired of it too) from some childish posters.

Well done Admins for publishing that e-mail, now we all know the kind of rubbish ye have to deal with!

Administrator (None) - Posts: 535 - 07/02/2010 08:25:31    553709

Iy you are going to close a thread and transfer it should my response to Green and Red and Squid at about 7 pm yesterday not be included ?

ruanua (Donegal) - Posts: 4966 - 07/02/2010 10:00:48    553720

Looks like the site was closed early last evening sometime around 6:00pm Irish time. I wonder if the game in Navan anything to do with this????

Squid

squidword (Louth) - Posts: 2897 - 07/02/2010 10:27:13    553729

It seems not

OK I wil try again to respond to Squid and Green and Red


To Clarify I am not defending the poster or his/her email. I am trying to defend every posters right to privacy


1. I agree HS mods should not have to take the abuse contained in the Email
2. I also agree that HS mods have a difficult job to wade through much of the muck on here
3. I agree that the email was well out of order
4. I would be of the view that if mods recevive abuse they should ban/bar a poster


however lets stand back from the content of the Email.
Were you aware under the house rules that the mods could publish something sent in private because I was not

We are then into an area where its the content of the email that may or may not lead to it being put on a public board.
So we are now into a subjective and judgemental area which can differ based on the reader concerned.


I for one value my anonymity though I do also know that there are a numbers of posters who know me and where I work.
and am sure that there are several posters in the same position so I am uncomforable that something I could say in private can be made public.
Its easy after the fact because I would ensure that I would not say anything that I would not be happy if made public, but I was'nt aware of this last week.

If you were at work and sent an Email to your HR manager for e.g would you be happy if he circulated to the entire company ?

ruanua (Donegal) - Posts: 4966 - 07/02/2010 10:28:29    553730

Jaysus.....!! What in the bloody hell..............

I'm telling you now... if it wasnt for myself and Liam running this place you'd all be fecked.

jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20763 - 07/02/2010 10:41:48    553738

I have noted that a new user Enlightened County: Carlow has had all 5 contributions to the site removed. Is this a record by HS standards for the shortest amount of time a poster has been on here. Perhaps I'm pre-empting the posters fate here as it may only be a simple matter of Enlightened getting of on the wrong foot but I don't think so however.

I noted also that Enlightened referred to Louth in two of the 5 posts previously mentioned above with one remark taking a pop at Louth and the other at a Louth poster namely myself. It clearly wouldn't be unique for users to have a go at Louth or indeed myself as over a period of time as you would expect that to happen but in the first and third post!.. strange I would say.

Squid

squidword (Louth) - Posts: 2897 - 07/02/2010 11:57:03    553763

ruanua

You clearly have identified something that all of us need to be cognisant off for the future.

Squid

squidword (Louth) - Posts: 2897 - 07/02/2010 12:11:30    553771

Took the words out of my mouth ruanua. First and foremost, the guy was way out of order and probably deserved what he got in my opinion, but if someone wrote a letter of complaint to a newspaper for instance, you wouldnt expect the contents to be on the front page the following day!

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 07/02/2010 13:11:06    553827

Some have said that we should not have posted the email we received, but the crucial point is that we did not name the person who wrote the piece. People have guessed, but bar us and the person who sent in that email, nobody can definitely say who the individual involved is.
To have named him would have been out of order and that is why we did not. The poster involved has come on using a different username and tried to tell people that it was he who wrote the piece - but to anyone bar the site admin it is without foundation.
The reasoning behind the thread was to give a taster of the feedback we get, which is consistent with some of the posts we also receive. It was to let people know that we understand at times they may get frustrated with posts being blocked or edited, we are always striving to do what is best for the site and users. On all occasions it is the content of the postings that is moderated and not the person who submits them.

Administrator (None) - Posts: 535 - 07/02/2010 13:50:04    553857

Fair Enough Admin
you did not publish his name

however I would have thought that it was always highly probable that the thread would move in a direction that pinpointed someone to a high degree of certainty.
As was the case with this thread - It may therefore have been appropriate to lock the thread once the barage of "it wasn't me"s started

ruanua (Donegal) - Posts: 4966 - 07/02/2010 13:59:38    553861

I don't see the mods posting that email is any different than other media outlets publishing 'letters to the editor'.

In the same way those media outlets edit those letters or decide not to publish others (or comments on articles via the internet) as they are entitled to as it could be damaging . To me that's the same as posting comments on this website, just on a more frequent and anonymous basis.

No privacy was breached, and the mod's point was highlighted.

JuanVeron (Westmeath) - Posts: 1866 - 07/02/2010 14:15:35    553875

ya fair enough admin, it was reasonable enough in that respect.

This thread has gone down a storm, its got me thinking that an official feedback thread would be a good addition to the forum. Responding would have to be at ur own discretion of course but it would be useful to have a designated place where the admins could freely interact or post when they felt the needed to.

Also, i would be in favour of breffni's idea of automatic naming of people caught with multiple usernames, as well as a 'banned list' available for registered users

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 07/02/2010 14:23:33    553881

administrator
County: All
Posts: 102

553857 Some have said that we should not have posted the email we received, but the crucial point is that we did not name the person who wrote the piece. People have guessed, but bar us and the person who sent in that email, nobody can definitely say who the individual involved is.
To have named him would have been out of order and that is why we did not. The poster involved has come on using a different username and tried to tell people that it was he who wrote the piece - but to anyone bar the site admin it is without foundation.
The reasoning behind the thread was to give a taster of the feedback we get, which is consistent with some of the posts we also receive. It was to let people know that we understand at times they may get frustrated with posts being blocked or edited, we are always striving to do what is best for the site and users. On all occasions it is the content of the postings that is moderated and not the person who submits them.

Fair enough, but some threads that seem over the top are allowed while a response to them is censored.

dhorse (Laois) - Posts: 11374 - 07/02/2010 14:33:31    553892

Multiple user names are an element of forums that are simply with us. Unless we see an obvious abuse of them, it is something we have to live with. When somebody tries to register three or four usernames in a short time period, they are going to be blocked. But if it is over a long period, and the posts they submit are acceptable, then it is simply a part of forum posting that is universal.
Unless you run a small site with maybe 100 active people, you are not manually going to crack down on it.
IP addresses do help us, but a large server with multiple users (such as certain workplaces or colleges) is going to have many different people with one IP address root. Setting the system up so that only one IP address is acceptable would mean that many genuine people would not be able to register.
If somebody gets blocked then they can come back under a different username, but the crucial issue is that if they continue along the same line that caused them to be blocked in the first place, then they are going to get gate again. Some learn from their mistakes and there is no problem.

Administrator (None) - Posts: 535 - 07/02/2010 14:39:10    553899

wewlcome back juan veron i thought u retired.
listen no hard feelings , i was just having a bit of craic with u.

ta32 (Tyrone) - Posts: 4907 - 07/02/2010 16:25:36    553981

Mr Loyal2theroyal i resent the fact that you though i had another username, sure when have i worried about what people think about what i say.

paddyogall (Mayo) - Posts: 5110 - 07/02/2010 17:41:49    554114

I know it is open season for complaints here but can I politely raise a few issues?

I know there are different moderators and there will always be an element of inconsistency, however there are some obvious rules that you all should be uniform on.

Personal Abuse - In the last few weeks, I have been generalised by a number of unsavoury descriptions. I am none of these things, whether in jest or otherwise. I would not complain about these things were it not for your censorship of my poking fun at the content of peoples posts. I am here to discuss various matters in an adult fashion with whoever else wants to. I find it immensely frustrating when any point I am making, is undermined by unfounded personal abuse, and even more maddening when my comments in reply to the content of a post is censored.

There is a huge difference in how moderators are approaching this as far as I can see. Should i dispense with the idea of "responding to the post not the poster" or even suggesting criticism of a poster and just come straight out and abuse them as this seems to be fair game now? Or perhaps set up another username, as that seems to be not only accepted but indulged?

Also, without being devious, can I also point out that the poster this thread is concerned with, may in fact have been named by yourselves (well, his/her alias anyway in case you mean his/her actual name) before the name was quickly removed.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is like a good episode of Lost, in that it raises more questions than it answers. Sorry.

PS, I'm aware that earlier in this thread I said mailing HS with greivances was sad but I think the goalposts have changed a little :)

Breffni40 (Cavan) - Posts: 12494 - 08/02/2010 16:47:23    555284

Breffni39
County: Cavan
Posts: 2068

Agreed

dhorse (Laois) - Posts: 11374 - 08/02/2010 17:11:44    555336

I think this is a brilliant thread. I think its fair to assume that tis RLF who was barred, and that twas him who tried to get back under Enlightened from Carlow. However he appears to have been rumbled on that one and thrown out again. I find myself scanning all posters with only a few posts to their name. I'd love to have him back in his orignal form just to hear his point of view on things.

corkcelt (Cork) - Posts: 4388 - 08/02/2010 17:27:29    555374