Banned for something written in different forum

mountainyman

I felt sorry for the whizzkid and he's been treated unfairly BUT
1 You can be treated unfairly on boards
2 He's a jerk

MM

masteroftherealm

damien.m wrote:

I think new forms of logic were invented in this thread all to protect one of the old boys from admitting to a mistake. When did users of this system turn into "them" from "us" and when was "benevolent" dropped from "benevolent dictatorship"? You're really wrecking boards lads.

Normally Id agree man. But netwhizzkid is a troll and noone gives a vrap about him.

Sid Deuce

damien.m wrote:

I think new forms of logic were invented in this thread all to protect one of the old boys from admitting to a mistake. When did users of this system turn into "them" from "us" and when was "benevolent" dropped from "benevolent dictatorship"? You're really wrecking boards lads.

Well said that man or woman! Them are us but like sheep in boots!

masteroftherealm

Sid Deuce wrote:

Well said that man or woman! Them are us but like sheep in boots!

tut tut ya ruined it

Gordon

Sid Deuce: the innocent proxyabuser..

damien.m

damien.m wrote:

I think new forms of logic were invented in this thread all to protect one of the old boys from admitting to a mistake. When did users of this system turn into "them" from "us" and when was "benevolent" dropped from "benevolent dictatorship"? You're really wrecking boards lads.

I resemble that remark
There was no new logic used here just straight foward old fashioned modding.

I'll take a quote from the relevant parts of my post on the mod board

As for NWK,I made my points regarding him in feedback as to why I banned him.
Malicious trolling spoils the politics forum full stop and its a pain to mod when trolling is let loose as it snowballs into the reactions to it getting out of hand.

We're just pointing out that for the good of the politics forum,we're reserving the right to mod anything sent there from elsewhere in whatever way we see fit including(as was in this case) dealing with a muppet.

Link

Rev Hellfire

OMG ! Posting contents from the Moderators forum and linking into it (not that they'll be seeing it unless they're mods) siteban time !

masteroftherealm

yeah i dont think that will go down too well lol

lucky1

Pardon my ignorance Whats Troling ???

Ruu_Old

lucky1 wrote:

Pardon my ignorance Whats Troling ???

Look here and here.:)

Stark

"Posting threads in order to get responses", huh?

Dave!

I agree that you shouldn't have been banned. Seems Earthman knows this too and is too stubborn to just admit he made a mistake.

InFront

So... we are supposed to watch our words in AH because something *might* get moved to politics? Then, by default, AH simply becomes a melting pot of all other forums, but, with all of their respective rules and charters applied to it.

Therefore, AH, if this is is some sort of boards precedent, is now the strictest forum on boards.:)

Right. Im off to Islam to talk sh1te again!

oscarBravo

You know, I'm really glad this thread was dragged back up, because I'm pretty sure it hadn't been DONE TO DEATH ALREADY!!

Faith

Ah no, oscar, there's only 4 pages (or 8, depending on how you see it). I'm sure there's plenty of points that can be repeated over and over again, yet.

InFront

Maybe if you both didnt continue the bumping it would have disappeared quicker. If you have read it all before, dont read on as this post will only bore you.:) Only joking.
I just find it interesting that AH, being the most likely place a thread is moved from, is therefore the strictest forum on the site, because any given thread has a greater chance of being moved to any given forum, and as we just learned, the charter from each respective forum backdates to each reply heretofor posted in that thread. Therefore AH threads have a greater potential to have an enormous number of charters binding them. I think that posters in AH should familiarise themselves with all forum charters on the site, being aware, as they should be, that opinions expressed in After Hours might at some future stage be subject to the approval or otherwise of, for example, the moderator of Legal Discussion, Music, Events, The Leaving Cert, Mustard, Computer Games, For Sale, Personal Issues, Islam, Christianity, Fashion/Appearance, etc. It is only right that users be aware that opinion expressed in AH should not contravene the charter of any of the above fora and more.

The Charter of TCN applies to Christianity.
The Charter of Islam applies to The Thunderdome.
The Charter of 'For Sale' applies to 'Wanted'
The Charter of The Leaving Cert applies To GreyHound Racing.

In fact, all the charters, it seems, apply to all the fora.

This also seems to elevate Lord Whitewashman, currently dominant moderator as he is, of the forum 'After Hours', the busiest forum on the boards, to the most significant and powerful moderator on the boards, after the administrators. Well done WWM!

I do have a question btw. Does this mean that all threads that have been moved in the past to other fora, will now be excavated and comments repugnant to the charter of the receiving forum will result in a penalty being served upon the poster who was the source of such comments? Or will this only arise when an old thread is pulled up from a specified time period after the thread had initially disappeared?

The whole thing is very confusing. Im sorry if you feel this has been discussed to death, but I have read the previous pages and the above points have not been clarified. How can a poster foresee what a moderator's decision will be on moving a thread, and respond in turn?

Surely it is the moderator who has the responsibility of ownership when sending the thread to a particular forum, not a poster who has expressed his opinion on that forum as a guest, where such an opinion contravenes no charter or rule. Im sure the people in-the-know are well familiar with the concept that a 'host' (read: moderator) is responsible for the possibly repugnant material (read: repugnant opinion) that he sends into the specified public domain (read: politics forum). Dont blame the poster!

Just to clarify, I loathe all opinions expressed by NetWhizKid.

Time Magazine

Faith wrote:

Ah no, oscar, there's only 4 pages (or 8, depending on how you see it). I'm sure there's plenty of points that can be repeated over and over again, yet.

I only see seven .

Oh and wetpisskid is the leader of the revolution, unfair banning imo.

But tbh, the ban was fair, and it's the mods' choice.

Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Raphael

Angry Banana wrote:

I only see seven .

There are four lights!

amp

damien.m wrote:

I think new forms of logic were invented in this thread all to protect one of the old boys from admitting to a mistake. When did users of this system turn into "them" from "us" and when was "benevolent" dropped from "benevolent dictatorship"? You're really wrecking boards lads.

THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!

DaveMcG

DaveMcG wrote:

I agree that you shouldn't have been banned. Seems Earthman knows this too and is too stubborn to just admit he made a mistake.

I take it you are privy to the discussions the mods of politics have had over the last few months on this subject?

No?

Thought so.The admins of this site have given us the responsibility to ensure the smooth running of the politics board and we decided that net whiz kids trolling ramblings didnt gell with the smooth running of the board.He has plenty of past trolling form.

Thats our perogative,our responsibility and specefically in this case my responsibility as It was I who actioned the decision.

If you had read all of this thread(it's not apparent that you have from the sentiment in your comment) you'd realise that yes posters who post threads anywhere in boards that have that thread moved to politics may be banned at the discretion of the mods of politics.

One thing I have consistently said whilst mod of politics is that I will take a dim view of posters there saying one thing in one thread and something different in another.Debate cannot be taken seriously if you have someone maintaining one line in one thread and a completely different one in another.
NWK certainly falls into that category but his main sin is persistant trolling and thats a big sin on politics.

Dave!

Earthman wrote:

Thought so.The admins of this site have given us the responsibility to ensure the smooth running of the politics board and we decided that net whiz kids trolling ramblings didnt gell with the smooth running of the board.He has plenty of past trolling form.

No doubt he has, but you banned him for a particular incident/post (although I can see a reply to this post being "I did?" or similar), which was posted in another forum (but your rules dictate that it's your prerogative to do so).

Earthman wrote:

If you had read all of this thread(it's not apparent that you have from the sentiment in your comment) you'd realise that yes posters who post threads anywhere in boards that have that thread moved to politics may be banned at the discretion of the mods of politics.

Where's the logic in that? How is it NWK's fault that the thread was moved from the 'somewhat lax' AH to your forum? The AH mods didn't deem it necessary to warn him there, but just moved the thread.

Is the message here "don't post a thread unless you're sure that it's not in breach of any forum on boards.ie"? Cos it's at the mods' discretion where a thread gets moved to.

Maybe a mention of this in the charter would be helpful...

InFront

Earthman wrote:

yes posters who post threads anywhere in boards that have that thread moved to politics may be banned at the discretion of the mods of politics.

One thing I have consistently said whilst mod of politics is that I will take a dim view of posters there saying one thing in one thread and something different in another.

The Charter in AH allowed for the expression of this opinion by the poster, NWK. It was a completely stupid comment to make imo, but it didnt break the rules of the forum where it was posted.

Events outside of his control led to the thread being moved.

What if I, being only a registered user, quote a relevent, but very distasteful opinion of some political event or policy such as immigration, that another poster made in, say, The Cuckoo's Nest. Is that poster going to be banned because i decided to bring his quote into politics?

This is exactly what happened when NWK's quote was brought into politics against even his knowledge.
Having said that, the mod who moved the thread was doing the thread a favour by moving it to politics, but a poster cannot be made responsible for where his comments are moved to.

Cloud

Thread closed.