Looking for an impartial opinion

boardy

Any chance of a few comments on the following thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054890436

The reason why I was banned was explained by Amp but I believe that it had more to do with an earlier post that another mod had reported. Is this the case of a mod backing a mod and finding a reason to seek retribution? Or was an offence committed, and if so was it so egregious that it deserved a banning?

I know the thread is long but it should speak for itself.

pp_me129

I dont think there is anything bad with that but tell me wrong:D

Chinafoot

Is this you being 'civil' again?

Which leads me to a whole different subject matter altogether:
Are all ghostbusters angry?

So less of the personal attacks and concentrate on disputing the arguments put forth.

That is the first instance of personal abuse I saw....you started it. Psi said you were ignorant of the facts and didn't know what you were talking about. Thats not personal abuse and Amp pointed that out to you. Your "ghostbusters" comment was fairly childish

Amp told you to get back on topic and your next post was this:

boardy wrote:

I repeatedly used links and references in my argument throughout this thread. How many did you use? Not one.
Just because you are a qualified epidemiologist, it does not imply that you do not have to supply corroborating evidence.

Even though I mentioned (on a number of occasions) that I was repeating what was in the public domain, you still directed words/phrases like “ignorant, haven’t a clue, haven’t a notion” towards me. In your latest post you say that I “just enjoy scaremongering”. Where is your proof of this?

The whole ‘tone’ of your responses was confrontational and not at all conducive to an open debate where all of us could become more informed (which was the reason why I placed this thread in Humanities to begin with).

You deserved it to be honest.

Stark

I've read through the whole thread and the issue wasn't about personal abuse, it was about you pretty much trolling, scaremongering and dragging the thread round in circles when your arguments were disproved. You were given plenty of warning, a week's ban was fair.

amp

boardy wrote:

Any chance of a few comments on the following thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054890436

The reason why I was banned was explained by Amp but I believe that it had more to do with an earlier post that another mod had reported. Is this the case of a mod backing a mod and finding a reason to seek retribution? Or was an offence committed, and if so was it so egregious that it deserved a banning?

I know the thread is long but it should speak for itself.

Well I'm obviously very embaressed at being caught but I suspose I should make a full confession. Yes, the post was reported by my fellow mod, whom, because he/she is a moderator I felt the need to back him/her up by banning someone who obviously does not fear the moderators as he/she should do.

I am guilty of seeking to find retribution and revenge and only banned that guy who posted because I am in a bad mood and/or because I am a gay nazi robot who seeks to boost my fragile ego through the power of the interweb.

Or alternatively when I say "back on topic" I'm not kidding.

pisslips

But most people are incapable of participating in argument.
You shouldn't ban someone because they're ignorant.Not that I think you are,I don't know you at all.In fact non-sensical drivel is valid considering that you obviously realised that everyone is self-centred and self-gratified( or at least they should be), it's bein a long time since I've someone admit that they're wrong unless they're "cutting their losses".Argument is used in the search of truth, WHY THE **** DO PEOPLE ATTACH EMOTION TO IT(ie. ego,empathy)
whats that?, your right, how would one masterbate one's ego otherwise?!
Yes it would be boring, so if we're goin to write irrational drivel why not make it creative.How can you attach rules to something which in essence is bounded only by the number of combinations of words and tones and imagery one can use! And emoticons.

I was gonna say,"But why was he really banned", just for the irony.

amp

pisslips wrote:

But most people are incapable of participating in argument.
You shouldn't ban someone because they're ignorant.Not that I think you are,I don't know you at all.In fact non-sensical drivel is valid considering that you obviously realised that everyone is self-centred and self-gratified( or at least they should be), it's bein a long time since I've someone admit that they're wrong unless they're "cutting their losses".Argument is used in the search of truth, WHY THE **** DO PEOPLE ATTACH EMOTION TO IT(ie. ego,empathy)
whats that?, your right, how would one masterbate one's ego otherwise?!
Yes it would be boring, so if we're goin to write irrational drivel why not make it creative.How can you attach rules to something which in essence is bounded only by the number of combinations of words and tones and imagery one can use! And emoticons.

I was gonna say,"But why was he really banned", just for the irony.

No, when I say back on topic it isn't a suggestion.

pisslips

amp wrote:

No, when I say back on topic it isn't a suggestion.

hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
So, Say it;)

The Sweeper

You really are almost as stupid as your nick, aren't you.

pisslips

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

You really are almost as stupid as your nick, aren't you.

Almost but not quite.
Gang up on little old pissy will ye?!
Well I'm not goin to fight a losing battle.
You clearly are highly powerfull!
Someday I want to eminate your glory!
I retract, don't say it!

What have you become?!
This is my second last off topic comment.
luv u.

rsynnott

pisslips wrote:

But most people are incapable of participating in argument.
You shouldn't ban someone because they're ignorant.Not that I think you are,I don't know you at all.In fact non-sensical drivel is valid considering that you obviously realised that everyone is self-centred and self-gratified( or at least they should be), it's bein a long time since I've someone admit that they're wrong unless they're "cutting their losses".Argument is used in the search of truth, WHY THE **** DO PEOPLE ATTACH EMOTION TO IT(ie. ego,empathy)
whats that?, your right, how would one masterbate one's ego otherwise?!
Yes it would be boring, so if we're goin to write irrational drivel why not make it creative.How can you attach rules to something which in essence is bounded only by the number of combinations of words and tones and imagery one can use! And emoticons.

I was gonna say,"But why was he really banned", just for the irony.

And in English?

GuanYin

rsynnott wrote:

And in English?

Let me get this straight, you're encouraging him to post again?

boardy

Peachypants: Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.
Stark: I re-read the thread and could not find the “plenty of warning” part.

I don’t get it. I asked a mod for corroborating evidence of his opposing view. This was deemed off topic and I was banned.

And since I still don’t get it and since I probably will make the same mistake again, I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted. This is not melodramatics – it is my only way to register a protest. Just to preempt the usual sarcastic response from Amp, I’m sure that boards will be better served without users like me.

Being banned is not the issue. The fact that Amp can go around denying freedom of expression for inappropriate reasons is. By the way, I would recommend that mods send a message to users when they are banned. I had no idea of the banning until I tried to access the thread.

It was a great pleasure to participate on some of the forums on boards. On other forums, the enjoyment is gone when you have to tip toe on topics because it’s like walking on eggshells because the finger is always on the banhammer. Banning is suitable for muppetry and abuse, not for conflict of views or nepotism.

GuanYin

boardy wrote:

Peachypants: Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.
Stark: I re-read the thread and could not find the “plenty of warning” part.

I don’t get it. I asked a mod for corroborating evidence of his opposing view. This was deemed off topic and I was banned.

And since I still don’t get it and since I probably will make the same mistake again, I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted. This is not melodramatics – it is my only way to register a protest. Just to preempt the usual sarcastic response from Amp, I’m sure that boards will be better served without users like me.

Being banned is not the issue. The fact that Amp can go around denying freedom of expression for inappropriate reasons is. By the way, I would recommend that mods send a message to users when they are banned. I had no idea of the banning until I tried to access the thread.

It was a great pleasure to participate on some of the forums on boards. On other forums, the enjoyment is gone when you have to tip toe on topics because it’s like walking on eggshells because the finger is always on the banhammer. Banning is suitable for muppetry and abuse, not for conflict of views or nepotism.

A bit of toys out of the pram if you please?

For the record, I don't know amp and have had very few, if any dealings with him in the past. As far as humanaties is concerned, I'm another user, not a mod.

Regarding the thread, you succumbed to last word-itus. If you'd stuck to the topic at hand, rather than go down the "stop being mean to me route" then you wouldn't have this problem.

When you refused to debate the issue and starting having a go at me for being uncivil (for the record, I made no comment about you at all. I commented on your actions and knowledge of the subject, I don't know what kind of person you are) and avoided continuing the debate, then you got banned.

Had it been me, I probably wouldn't have banned you and in fact I was surprised when you were, but then again, you shouldn't ignore mod warnings in a forum - I suggest you just live and learn rather than bite your nose to spite your face..

Shabadu

Zaph0d

psi wrote:

The "when it happens " comment just shows how ignorant you are of the facts of the matter.

This could have been stated in a less insulting way. Poster states that s/he is not a native English speaker, and may not be aware that this type of sentence is always considered an insult.

The other poster took the bait so both deserved to be banned. The ban is 1 week and hardly worth complaining about.

Asok

The admins will not delete your account.
I can however ban it if thats what you want?

pisslips

what?!
Yeah, I'm not sure if he deserved the ban.
Why can't you let him go around in circles, how can you be angry just because he fails to accept the course of an argument.Why not just not reply to him?!

rsynnott

boardy wrote:

I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted.

Hallelujah, praise the lord!

Gordon

Jaysis pisslips, go away.

Banned from Feedback.

amp

boardy wrote:

Peachypants: Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.
Stark: I re-read the thread and could not find the “plenty of warning” part.

Did you see the part where I said "back on topic"?

I don’t get it. I asked a mod for corroborating evidence of his opposing view. This was deemed off topic and I was banned.

No you didn't you stayed firmly off-topic and re-engaged with the tit for tat squabbling crap that was dominating the thread. I said the phrase "back on topic" which does not mean "please continue to argue with each other about what is and what is not personal abuse blah blah blah".

And since I still don’t get it and since I probably will make the same mistake again, I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted. This is not melodramatics – it is my only way to register a protest. Just to preempt the usual sarcastic response from Amp, I’m sure that boards will be better served without users like me.

That's your business. If you got a parking fine I expect you would accuse the Garda responsible for nepotism because a fellow gard wanted to park there and would write a letter to Bertie Ahern revoking your citizenship. That sounds like an over the top response, but it's very similar to this situation.

Being banned is not the issue. The fact that Amp can go around denying freedom of expression for inappropriate reasons is.

I told you to get back on topic. You didn't. I banned you for a mere week. The end.

By the way, I would recommend that mods send a message to users when they are banned. I had no idea of the banning until I tried to access the thread.

Never. I've made my views on this quite clear.

It was a great pleasure to participate on some of the forums on boards. On other forums, the enjoyment is gone when you have to tip toe on topics because it’s like walking on eggshells because the finger is always on the banhammer. Banning is suitable for muppetry and abuse, not for conflict of views or nepotism.

You were banned because you did not get back on topic. You ignored my warning to get back on topic. It's quite simple to avoid being banned by me. Anyone with basic english skills can achieve this.

You were not banned for your viewpoints and you were not banned because Psi is a moderator you were banned because (let's try this in caps this time) YOU DID NOT GET BACK ON TOPIC.

BizMaker

amp wrote:

No you didn't you stayed firmly off-topic and re-engaged with the tit for tat squabbling crap that was dominating the thread.

If there was tit for tit squabbling crap, then why did you not ban both of them?
You appear to be selective in your banning.

After reading the thread, I thought that psi was nasty with a few of his comments. Irrespective of the fact that English is not his primary language, it should not be used as an excuse to talk like that. I looked at boardy’s post history to get an indication of his posting character. Even one of the admins said that he was a “genuinely helpful user”.

So it looks like a mod reported a non-mod poster, and then the poster gets banned.
Claiming that a poster did not get back to topic is a subjective interpretation. You had an axe to grind. And yes, believe it or not, some of us mere mortal posters have the cheek to question your actions and are not afraid to express ourselves on a public forum.

GuanYin

Please show me where I was nasty.

How is stating that someone is ignorant of a fact or facts nasty.

How is saying that someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about nasty.

Can you show me any point where I insulted the poster himself?

Gordon

BizMaker wrote:

You appear to be selective in your banning.

And you seem to be selective in your reading. Have you not read amps replies? Especially the bit in big letters?

amp

BizMaker wrote:

If there was tit for tit squabbling crap, then why did you not ban both of them?
You appear to be selective in your banning.

Yes indeed, I only banned the poster that failed to get back on topic.

After reading the thread, I thought that psi was nasty with a few of his comments. Irrespective of the fact that English is not his primary language, it should not be used as an excuse to talk like that. I looked at boardy’s post history to get an indication of his posting character. Even one of the admins said that he was a “genuinely helpful user”.

I didn't look at boardy's history. I just banned him for not getting back on topic.

So it looks like a mod reported a non-mod poster, and then the poster gets banned.
Claiming that a poster did not get back to topic is a subjective interpretation. You had an axe to grind.

Seeing as your so great at looking at poster histories, take a look at mine and show me how many axes I've ground. Do I have a history of taking the side of moderators or do I plainly not give a crap about the status of a user as long as they abide my the simple phrase "back on topic".

You and no one else will be able to prove that I am biased towards any user, because I am not. It's true that I don't ban many moderators and that's usually because they know that it's not a good idea to break the rules.

And yes, believe it or not, some of us mere mortal posters have the cheek to question your actions and are not afraid to express ourselves on a public forum.

Well done, and I am not afraid to defend myself against your and others baseless accusations. For you it's far, far easier to invent conspiracies and corruption scandals rather than face the simple fact that boardy was banned because s/he ignored my request to get back on topic and no other reason.

Where you from psi?:)

GuanYin

Deleted User wrote:

Where you from psi?:)

How would you react if I were to tell you I wasnt from Guildford after all, but from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?

BizMaker

amp wrote:

You and no one else will be able to prove that I am biased towards any user, because I am not. It's true that I don't ban many moderators and that's usually because they know that it's not a good idea to break the rules.

Who are you trying to kid?

You issued your request to stay on topic. You banned boardy for his first comment after that request. However on the very next post by psi, he says

psi wrote:

My tone is only confrontational in your head.

How is that on topic?
It definitely shows bias and the only logical reason he was not banned is because the poster was a mod. Fine, you banned boardy. But you should have banned psi too.

A detached observer would see that a mod reported a user. Then that user gets banned but the mod who reported the poster is allowed to flaunt the rules.
At the end of the end, who gives a fcuk. Nothing changes. A user is banned but he decides to leave boards for good as a protest.
The mods involved are happy. Mission accomplished.

Zaph0d

psi wrote:

Please show me where I was nasty.

How is stating that someone is ignorant of a fact or facts nasty.

How is saying that someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about nasty.

Can you show me any point where I insulted the poster himself?

psi, you are talking rubbish. Just face the fact that you know nothing about the difference between an insult and an argument. That's the way it is and I can't say it any plainer. Why don't you go and read up something about logical fallacies? I am a qualified expert in logic and your comments just show how ignorant you are of the facts. You have no idea what you're talking about. you just don't have a clue, do you?

I'm only joking but if a poster is 'ignorant of the facts' then merely stating this is equivalent to saying 'you are wrong'. It is a dead end. It is not an argument. We learnt from psi that

• something boardy said 'just shows how ignorant [he is]'
• boardy hasn't a clue what he's talking about
• boardy hasn't a notion

What can I learn from these points about bird flu?

Calling someone ignorant is a way of avoiding debating an issue: the difference of opinion is supposedly due to one person's lack of education or knowledge. This is an ad hominem attack.

Asok

Zaph0d wrote:

I am a qualified expert in logic

Commander Spock?

GuanYin

Zaph0d wrote:

psi, you are talking rubbish. Just face the fact that you know nothing

I find that insulting. You are suggesting I know nothing and am stupid and ignorant.

Why would you comment on my intelligence?

about the difference between an insult and an argument.

Ohhh, now see how selective quoting can change the meaning of a phrase or comment?

:rolleyes:

That's the way it is and I can't say it any plainer. Why don't you go and read up something about logical fallacies? I am a qualified expert in logic and your comments just show how ignorant you are of the facts. You have no idea what you're talking about. you just don't have a clue, do you?

Pointless trolly nonsense.

If you actually read the thread, rather than went on this little bandwagon jumping fight the power crusade, you'd see that I actually did make points and comments, all of which were ignored.

I'm only joking but if a poster is 'ignorant of the facts' then merely stating this is equivalent to saying 'you are wrong'.

Agreed, but I did put forward a counter argument which was by and large ignored. As were points and analogies I tried to make, specifically regarding SARS.

Which was my point, if you want to enter a debate, you have to take both sides of the coin and weight them up, hear all arguments. You can't just stick to your guns and not take any more info in. I mean, it wasn't til the last few posts that I saw the Stohr reference, which was one line from an interview. That could have been twisted to mean anything.

The whole thread was based on what that one line and other opinions stemming from it *might* mean.

If you're going to say "we're all going to die from a disease" and then ignore any argument put forward about the nature of the disease and probability of the disease actually coming to humans, then Id say calling someone "ignorant of the facts" (as opposed to just ignorant) is justified. If you don't agree with this, please explain why?

It is a dead end. It is not an argument. We learnt from psi that

• something boardy said 'just shows how ignorant [he is]'
• boardy hasn't a clue what he's talking about
• boardy hasn't a notion

If you really feel thats all anyone learned about bird flu from my posts, how about we wager a one month site ban from the smods (if they agree) that I can go through my posts on that thread and come up with an equal number of points specifically relating to bird flu.

I mean, if you really feel you can back up that statement and that I made no points about bird flu?

What can I learn from these points about bird flu?

I bet we learned more than that, you're being selective again.

Care to take that wager?

Calling someone ignorant is a way of avoiding debating an issue: the difference of opinion is supposedly due to one person's lack of education or knowledge. This is an ad hominem attack.

Its not opinion, I made a great number of ignored points in the thread.

Selective reading seems to be contagious these days, perhaps we should be more worried about this than bird flu?