banned from politics

Sam Vimes

i got banned from politics because of this thread:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054921422

i got banned because a mod made a number of personal insults against me and then i made one (admittely strongly worded) back

i don't think mods should be allowed break their own rules, especially if they're then going to ban people for breaking the same rule in retaliation


the main one was he said "i'm keeping things simple for commander vimes". i consider that to be a personal insult with nothing to do with the thread and so against the rules of the forum. either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

personally i think that only he should because i was just responding to an insult. it might sound childish, but he started it and he's supposed to be a mod

Amz

Fully deserved ban. If you can't keep your counsel you don't deserve to be allowed on the forum.

Pighead

Pigheads had a read of the thread Commander Vimes(4/10, notions of upperosity) and I'm afraid I can't help you buddy. The ban remains. To put it simply you were punching above your weight. A few of your points made Pigheads bushy eyebrows rise into an arch. And to top it off you blew your top and used some obscene language after barely any provocation.

It reminded me of that time I played in a football match in 87 and some young cnut kept running rings around me making an absolute fool of me. What did I do? Ignored the ball and hit him Keane like with a leg braeker of a tackle. He was too good for me and I reacted badly. Never played for that team again.
Anyway best of luck with your crusade.

Hagar

If you feel strongly enough about an insult aimed at you, say so publically in a post in a non-confrontational manner, report the original post and await the mods decision. Anything else is a reciepe for a banning.

seamus

Commander Vimes wrote:

the main one was he said "i'm keeping things simple for commander vimes". i consider that to be a personal insult with nothing to do with the thread and so against the rules of the forum. either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

I completely disagree. Perhaps to you that was an insult, but in the context it wasn't meant as one.

Because boards.ie has so many members, the difference in existing knowledge between certain members is going to be vast. Often, someone will start a thread about something, and talk about it so far as they understand. When this understanding is limited, you'll see the more knowledgeable members "keep it simple", otherwise you just end up looking like a intellectual pompous arsehole. After a while of this "keeping it simple", someone knowledgeable will join in and not realise that everyone is trying to keep it simple, and will start pciking at posts and saying things like "That's very general" or "That's not the whole truth". Then the knowledgeable members have to defend their knowledge and say "I was keeping it simple".

Imagine trying to explain the universe to someone without a degree in physics, and then a Physicist arriving in, telling you that you're not being comprehensive enough, and talking about superstrings. When this happens in debating, the least knowledgeable people feel inadequate, and tend to leave or argue way out of their depth.

Sam Vimes

Pighead wrote:

Pigheads had a read of the thread Commander Vimes(4/10, notions of upperosity) and I'm afraid I can't help you buddy. The ban remains. To put it simply you were punching above your weight. A few of your points made Pigheads bushy eyebrows rise into an arch. And to top it off you blew your top and used some obscene language after barely any provocation.

It reminded me of that time I played in a football match in 87 and some young cnut kept running rings around me making an absolute fool of me. What did I do? Ignored the ball and hit him Keane like with a leg braeker of a tackle. He was too good for me and I reacted badly. Never played for that team again.
Anyway best of luck with your crusade.

i didn't post it because he was "running rings around me", i posted it because he insulted me. i've managed to clock up 1,700 posts without insulting anyone but the level of his arrogance just put me into a rage. i realise i was hasty in posting obscenity, i apologise for that.

if he was "too good for me", why did he feel the need to break his own rules several times (5 by my count) to argue against me?

does the fact that i was replying to an insult from a mod not count for anything?

gandalf

Ban justified. If you felt you were being insulted you should have reported the offending post. I see no reports of this kind and from reading the thread I believe you are being too sensitive to what Earthman said, also your attitude was aggressive before Earthman even replied to the thread.

Sam Vimes

seamus wrote:

I completely disagree. Perhaps to you that was an insult, but in the context it wasn't meant as one.

Because boards.ie has so many members, the difference in existing knowledge between certain members is going to be vast. Often, someone will start a thread about something, and talk about it so far as they understand. When this understanding is limited, you'll see the more knowledgeable members "keep it simple", otherwise you just end up looking like a intellectual pompous arsehole. After a while of this "keeping it simple", someone knowledgeable will join in and not realise that everyone is trying to keep it simple, and will start pciking at posts and saying things like "That's very general" or "That's not the whole truth". Then the knowledgeable members have to defend their knowledge and say "I was keeping it simple".

Imagine trying to explain the universe to someone without a degree in physics, and then a Physicist arriving in, telling you that you're not being comprehensive enough, and talking about superstrings. When this happens in debating, the least knowledgeable people feel inadequate, and tend to leave or argue way out of their depth.

imagine you were posting in a thread and in your opinion another poster was posting complete and utter crap and being arrogant about it. and then the person who's been missing the point of what you're saying for hours then insults your intelligence. how would you feel about that?

Hobbes

Oooh a trial by public! These are always fun. (use helpdesk if you don't want random people replying to your complaint)

Welcome to politics.. its not AH. You generally have to back up facts with sources if you get pulled up on them. Going on about 10 apples or story about your friend doesn't cut it there.

That alone generally gets you a warning. (and people wonder where I get the gimmie a link habit from )

Earthman also mentioned no bitching in page2 and I can't see where he started it. If anything he was having a go at your lack of facts in your post and you called him stupid in a round about way, which was followed up by Earthman in tit-for-tat later.

Sam Vimes

gandalf wrote:

Ban justified. If you felt you were being insulted you should have reported the offending post. I see no reports of this kind and from reading the thread I believe you are being too sensitive to what Earthman said, also your attitude was aggressive before Earthman even replied to the thread.

its true my attitude was agressive because another poster who's name i can't remember was also insulting me. to be honest i probably wouldn't have posted it if it had just been earthman but his insults on top of the other blokes had me in a right pisser

maybe i'm just not used to the politics forum. is it common practice to talk down to people like they're five years old in that forum?

GobShi7e

Fully deserved ban.

Sam Vimes

GobShi7e wrote:

Fully deserved ban.

i have conceded that the ban was justified. of course by the same logic earthman also deserves a ban

Dirk Gently

Would a ban for a certain amount of time not be more justified? I agree that he deserves to be banned but a permanent ban is a bit harsh. I doubt he's going to offend again and he knows he was out of order anyway.
If he does offend again then a permanent ban would be justified. I know myself how easy it is to make a “slip of the keyboard” which is why I preview every message I post so as to edit the bad bits before posting. Just think a permanent ban should be a last resort after a warning is given.

Sam Vimes

clown bag wrote:

Would a ban for a certain amount of time not be more justified? I agree that he deserves to be banned but a permanent ban is a bit harsh. I doubt he's going to offend again and he knows he was out of order anyway.
If he does offend again then a permanent ban would be justified. I know myself how easy it is to make a “slip of the keyboard” which is why I preview every message I post so as to edit the bad bits before posting. Just think a permanent ban should be a last resort after a warning is given.

this would make more sense, especially since the mod was breaking his own rules

Dirk Gently

It's debatable whether the mod broke the rules, I’ve been know to thread the line earthman took on occasion, subtlety implying something without actually outright slagging off someone. That’s a good use of language in my opinion.
Your outburst was not debatable and you fell into the trap. I do think the decision was harsh though and would be in favor of a lesser ban, maybe a week or what ever they see fit. A permanent ban is too harsh in my opinion. A timed ban would give the banned person time to reflect and would ensure he doesn't repeat the offence. If he did repeat it then a permanent ban would be totally justified and no one would argue with it.

seamus

Commander Vimes wrote:

this would make more sense, especially since the mod was breaking his own rules

As clown bag points out, that's extremely subjective and subject to debate. He wasn't even engaging directly with you.

BuffyBot

by the same logic earthman also deserves a ban

In your humble..can't say I'd agree.

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

is it common practice to talk down to people like they're five years old in that forum?

Only to some people.

<edit>
If you read the rules, you'll notice that condescension is not (nor has it ever been) a bannable offence.

Calling someone a troll, on the other hand, is explicitly mentioned. As for the subsequent outbursts....yeah.

You say someone else was insulting you...I assume you're upset because you reported their posts (as the same rules request you to) but nothing was done?

Up to the "keeping it simple" comment, Earthman only ever attacked your arguments - again keeping entirely within the rules. As for whether or not the simple comment was an insult...I couldn't honestly say, but it has to be acknowledged that he was answering criticism that his presented line of reasoning was simplistic. Arguably he worded it wrong. Again, I assume your complaint is that you reported what you perceived as his insults and nothing was done?
</edit>

jc

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

this would make more sense, especially since the mod was breaking his own rules

They're not my rules, they are the charter.
I explained to another poster that I was keeping my points simple thats common enough when debating otherwise points can be lost in convoluted longer posts.
It's not my fault if you decide to go on a hissy fit as a result of your big misinterpretation of that post.

I am willing to accept that you went overboard due to a lack of familiarity with the conventions of the politics board.

The permananent ban is being commuted to one month.

Hagar

Earthman wrote:

The permananent ban is being commuted to one month.

Thank the man, then sit it out.

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

They're not my rules, they are the charter.
I explained to another poster that I was keeping my points simple thats common enough when debating otherwise points can be lost in convoluted longer posts.
It's not my fault if you decide to go on a hissy fit as a result of your big misinterpretation of that post.

I am willing to accept that you went overboard due to a lack of familiarity with the conventions of the politics board.

The permananent ban is being commuted to one month.

thank you. i still disagree with you but i've seen what happens when i do that so i won't

Sand

I must be psychic. Soon as I saw the ban, I knew thered be a thread in Feedback about it.

You deserved the ban. Basically you earned it with the actual blatant insult, but you deserved it long before that.

Look at your starting post; It takes bad information, spins it, and then ironically insults the intelligence/factual knowledge of anyone whod believe your made up version of the story.

You then went on a very long very annoying pointless refusal to accept that tax take can rise even when tax rates fall, that budgets need not be cut simply because tax rates are. Even the possibility was denied, flying in the face of all economic study and analysis, let alone the reality of Irish history - massive tax evasion and chronic debt in the high tax 80s, budget surplus in the low tax 90s/present day. Now there are some posters who are wrong, they have a certain grasp of facts from which they form their opinion. If it is demonstrated that there are additional facts, theyll reassess. Then there are people who are worse than wrong, theyre stupid, and they waste everyones time with their stupid posts. Theyre beyond all hope.

Objectively, yeah a permament ban was harsh for a first offence (though it was a pretty unambigious first offence) but I cant see a protest movement forming around your cause tbh.

maybe i'm just not used to the politics forum. is it common practice to talk down to people like they're five years old in that forum?

Yeah, pretty much. If they post like theyre five years old.

Sam Vimes

Sand wrote:

I must be psychic. Soon as I saw the ban, I knew thered be a thread in Feedback about it.

You deserved the ban. Basically you earned it with the actual blatant insult, but you deserved it long before that.

Look at your starting post; It takes bad information, spins it, and then ironically insults the intelligence/factual knowledge of anyone whod believe your made up version of the story.

You then went on a very long very annoying pointless refusal to accept that tax take can rise even when tax rates fall, that budgets need not be cut simply because tax rates are. Even the possibility was denied, flying in the face of all economic study and analysis, let alone the reality of Irish history - massive tax evasion and chronic debt in the high tax 80s, budget surplus in the low tax 90s/present day. Now there are some posters who are wrong, they have a certain grasp of facts from which they form their opinion. If it is demonstrated that there are additional facts, theyll reassess. Then there are people who are worse than wrong, theyre stupid, and they waste everyones time with their stupid posts. Theyre beyond all hope.

Objectively, yeah a permament ban was harsh for a first offence (though it was a pretty unambigious first offence) but I cant see a protest movement forming around your cause tbh.



Yeah, pretty much. If they post like theyre five years old.

lets leave it at "i disagree". feedback isn't the place for such posts. also, i'm far from stupid. no one who actually knows anything about me calls me stupid

sceptre

I'm not going to trawl old ground but the charter's pretty clear on what specifically isn't allowed (and anything specifically disallowed isn't so for fun). Directly attacking a poster leads to a simple decision.

Dave!

Fair play for commuting the ban!

And this sets a horrible precident, now everyone knows that posting a complaint in Feedback can in fact lead to a ban being removed, so expect an influx of thread!

For the record, I think ye were both patronising each other and the OP obviously took a post badly and posted the bad words... bad bad words...!

amp

Pighead wrote:

Pigheads had a read of the thread Commander Vimes(4/10, notions of upperosity) and I'm afraid I can't help you buddy.

What help would that be?

Pighead

amp wrote:

What help would that be?

What do you mean what help would that be?

The help that would have been is obvious. If Pighead had read the thread and agreed with Commander Vimes grievances then the ban would have been lifted. Dunno about you but I'm pretty sure that could be interpreted as pretty damn helpful.

Such a strange question.

Dirk Gently

clownbag loves the way pighead always talks about himself in the third person.

VIM

Pighead wrote:

Such a strange question.

Not really. Especially when you look at the person who asked the question (he who is 'above' us all).

Tar.Aldarion

VIM wrote:

Not really. Especially when you look at the person who asked the question (he who is 'above' us all).

I answered nothing.

Now, what an incredibly boring thread that politics one was, the ban was well deserved. Not a permanent one though. If you had said you were keeping a point simple for him, would you expect to be banned?
I wouldn't.

Karl Hungus

I'd say the ban was totally justified, and your little example of Earthman's so-called abuse is just clutching at straws.