Banned from Instruments forum.

Rozie

It's got to have been nearly a year now, if not more than that. I can't remember what happened but I can't see any real logical reason for being banned for this long, especially since it was pretty much a "hair trigger" ban, as far as I remember. I think I could help a lot of people out with guitar pedals, etc. so I'd appreciate being unbanned from it.

Ruu_Old

Have you contacted one of the mods recently? Doctor J, feylya, John, Karl Hungus or Oeneus. They are all fairly active.

Rozie

I contacted Karl Hungus and he said Felyla did it. Doesn't look like he wants to undo it though. I don't see why one of the other mods can't reverse it though, it's silly making one person's bans infallible, in case they hold a judge or don't want to admit they're wrong, etc.

Giblet

You usually contact the guy who banned you because other mods don't interfere with each other. Also, you were a twat on the forum and you should steer clear before you bestow more "knowledge"on us like "How to make my guitar sound it's taking a dump using a fuzz factory".

Karl Hungus

Rozie wrote:

I contacted Karl Hungus and he said Felyla did it. Doesn't look like he wants to undo it though. I don't see why one of the other mods can't reverse it though, it's silly making one person's bans infallible, in case they hold a judge or don't want to admit they're wrong, etc.

I asked Feylya and told him that I would be in favour of unbanning you, he said no. If I were to just go and unban you anyway, when it was his call to ban you in the first place, I'd just be ****ing things up and getting in the way.

Rozie

But that makes absolutely no sense.

What if some hypopthetical mod flies off the handle and decides to ban someone just for "****s and giggles"? Or bans someone because they're gay, or jewish? Would none of the other mods touch it because it's that mod's decision and should be left alone?

I'm sure that even here there is another way to get unbanned. Surely I'm not the only to recognise this hole? "Getting in the way" of an irrational or outdated decision sounds ridiculous to me, so if that exception holds true, surely if I can make a convincing enough point, I could be an exception too?

What if I were to construct a logical, solid argument as to why?

aidan_walsh

What if I were to construct a logical, solid argument as to why?

Why not just do that as opposed to bitching and whining?

Rb

The mod in questions decision is final, and he/she are the ones who its up to to unban you. Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean you can run off to another mod complaining in hope they'll unban you.
If the mods started messing with other mods bans and unbans, there'd be havok.
As far as I know, that's how this system works, either talk to Feyla about it or if you don't like it, you can always click this

Rozie

rb, this is pretty much the only forum that has the "infallible mod" idea. So saying there'd be "havok" is nothing short of a fallacy, and doesn't answer my question.

The mod in questions decision is final, and he/she are the ones who its up to to unban you. Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean you can run off to another mod complaining in hope they'll unban you.

Why not? It's not even a case of not liking the decision - what if it just isn't logically defensible?
You haven't provided any real justification as to why a moderator's decision should be completely infallible, especially when it can possibly lead to the scenarios I proposed.

I'm trying to find the last topics I posted in, but the forum doesn't seem to want to let me.

This is all I could find - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=281920& but I don't think I was banned for ordering a 7 String Guitar. Then again, you never know.

Rozie

Rozie wrote:

But that makes absolutely no sense.

What if some hypopthetical mod flies off the handle and decides to ban someone just for "****s and giggles"? Or bans someone because they're gay, or jewish? Would none of the other mods touch it because it's that mod's decision and should be left alone?

If you show that this is the case, then you will be taken seriously. But giving out about being banned when you haven't contacted the person who banned you will probably mean that you won't be taken seriously.

Rozie

Myth wrote:

If you show that this is the case, then you will be taken seriously. But giving out about being banned when you haven't contacted the person who banned you will probably mean that you won't be taken seriously.

He was contacted. He said no. Without providing a reason, of course. Which is a major gripe for me - every decision should be backed with sufficent reasoning. So I'm wonderring if there's another way to appeal it.

Rozie

Rozie wrote:

He was contacted. He said no. Without providing a reason, of course. Which is a major gripe for me - every decision should be backed with sufficent reasoning. So I'm wonderring if there's another way to appeal it.

As I said, you should have contacted him - have you asked him for a reason?

Talliesin

Rozie wrote:

What if some hypopthetical mod flies off the handle and decides to ban someone just for "****s and giggles"? Or bans someone because they're gay, or jewish?

The bans they'd made would be re-assessed after they were de-modded.

Rozie wrote:

He was contacted. He said no. Without providing a reason, of course. Which is a major gripe for me - every decision should be backed with sufficent reasoning. So I'm wonderring if there's another way to appeal it.

Why should the decision that a permanent ban should remain permanent be backed up with anything beyond "look up permanent in a dictionary"? The decision was already made, nothing has changed, there's no need for the moderator to do anything.

Rb

Rozie wrote:

You haven't provided any real justification as to why a moderator's decision should be completely infallible, especially when it can possibly lead to the scenarios I proposed.

Tbh, if a moderator was banning people for being jewish,gay,bisexual,black,white or any other ground for discrimination, and it was proved (not just hear say or accusations) that they were doing so, I'm pretty sure they'd no longer be a moderator. Might even get sitebanned for it.

Talliesin

Yep, rb_ie. Indeed, I'd particularly enjoy that siteban.

Rozie

I don't see the need if he already said no. I didn't remember who it was that banned me and Hungus had already contacted him by the time he told me.

I suppose I could try.

The bans they'd made would be re-assessed after they were de-modded.

So the mods AREN'T entirely infallible? So why is it acceptable for them to be over-ruled in one scenario and not another?

Why should the decision that a permanent ban should remain permanent be backed up with anything beyond "look up permanent in a dictionary"? The decision was already made, nothing has changed, there's no need for the moderator to do anything.

Because there's such a thing as "logical justification". An action cannot be considered "right" unless it is logically backed. This isn't my crazy idea, it's an objective fact. Certain lines of reasoning are acceptable and others aren't. "Because I say so" is probably the most logically weak position you could ever assume. You might have the ability to do it, but completely lack any form of justification. I.e., it's objectively wrong, and you can't really debate that.

Talliesin

Rozie wrote:

So the mods AREN'T entirely infallible? So why is it acceptable for them to be over-ruled in one scenario and not another?

You want to know why mods will be over-ruled if they've behaved improperly, but not if they haven't?

Sorry, I really don't think it's possible to explain that to someone who doesn't already get it.

Rozie wrote:

Because there's such a thing as "logical justification". An action cannot be considered "right" unless it is logically backed.

Not unbanning someone who is permanently banned is not an action, it needs no justification. Unbanning someone that is permanently banned is what would need to be justified.

Karl Hungus

Right, for the benifit of all man kind, I have just gone and searched by looking back through all the threads on instruments to find the thread where Rozie was banned. And here it is!

Basically, Rozie and LundiMardi took the thread way off-topic and were both banned for it.

Rozie

You want to know why mods will be over-ruled if they've behaved improperly, but not if they haven't?

Sorry, I really don't think it's possible to explain that to someone who doesn't already get it.

Very poor logic. If they have behaved improperly, it would not necessarily be recognised by staff.

I would consider suspending someone for two weeks on first offense completely improper behaviour. You appear to disagree.

Not unbanning someone who is permanently banned is not an action, it needs no justification. Unbanning someone that is permanently banned is what would need to be justified.

There are so many logical problems with that I'm not sure where to start.

The best thing I can do is provide a hypothetical scenario.

If I'm a cop and I throw a guy in a jail cell for a week, because I don't like the look of him.

Now, that's pretty bad. But maybe I had a reason for it. But what if I left him
in there for good? Under what circumstances is that fair? But surely,
releasing him would be action that needs defending?

I need seperate justification. Prolonging his stay there is an action in itself.

You're saying that you need no justification for this.

Your logic is extremely flawed.

It even falls under the fallacy of Appeal to Tradition to an extent - just because a way of doing things at some point in the past was acceptable, does not mean it applies right here and now. Old ways come into question.

A ban is an ongoing thing. It is not something that just happened. I cannot currently access the forums. This is an action that happens anytime I try to access the forums - it denies my request. This is an ongoing action. What is being achieved by keeping it in place, apart from frustrating me further?

If someone makes a decision that gay people should be beaten, should that be left alone because it's a decision that's already being made, and no justification needs to be made for it's continued action?

EVERY decision has to be justified, especially if it's effects are ongoing.

At worst, we have to look at the original action. Why should I be banned permanently?
Under what circumstances is that an acceptable thing to do?

Please, learn some debating logic before making a point again. Just because your argument is the one accepted by those in authority does not mean it is any more valid.

Basically, Rozie and LundiMardi took the thread way off-topic and were both banned for it.

That's what I got PERMANENTLY banned for? I got banned permanently for an argument with some eejit over my playing style?

So how does that justify a permanent ban? I also note that at not one point did Felyla tell us to cool it, even. Shouldn't you try that before banning someone? Apparently not.

Karl Hungus

Rozie wrote:

That's what I got PERMANENTLY banned for? I got banned permanently for an argument with some eejit over my playing style?

So how does that justify a permanent ban? I also note that at not one point did Felyla tell us to cool it, even. Shouldn't you try that before banning someone? Apparently not.

Threads like this probably didn't help either.

Rozie

Oh man that thread was awesome.

But come on, that was totally on topic. The Wangcaster is a real guitar.

When you ban someone, it's nonsensical to make it indefinite, at least if it's their first or second ban.

This is really a case of common decency here. I haven't even been around much here in ages. I will always argue passionately for logical justification over appeal to force. Whether it gets me banned or not, someone has to say it. But that's nothing to do with why I was banned in the Instruments forum.

muffler

Karl Hungus wrote:

Threads like this probably didn't help either.

Could you not pull a few strings to get the ban lifted

Rozie

muffler wrote:

Could you not pull a few strings to get the ban lifted

I agree. I want to hear more about this "Wangcaster"...

Stark

Well for a start, it's pretty vile looking.

Maguined

Rozie wrote:

That's what I got PERMANENTLY banned for? I got banned permanently for an argument with some eejit over my playing style?

So how does that justify a permanent ban? I also note that at not one point did Felyla tell us to cool it, even. Shouldn't you try that before banning someone?

Should'nt you use some intelligence and not insult someone on a thread in which you are trying to prove you should be unbanned for rule breaking ?

Rozie wrote:

Apparently not.

feylya

Considering your attitude about this whole banning along with your carry on on the other forums on Boards.ie since your banning, I am reluctant to unban you. I will however discuss this with the other mods of the forum and decide whether to unban you from the forum.

kaimera

Well, tbh, a perm ban for a first offence is a tad harsh* if there was no warning on the thread in question and if the poster wasn't warned previously.

Then again, I didn't click the links above.

*unless it's porn or warez or that music crowd obviously

Karoma

Personal abuse is a reason for a permanent ban, IMHO, when you take into consideration how the poster behaves in every other forum. i.e. The exact same, trollerific, abusive way.

DeVore

Rozie, mods are not considered infalliable however co-mods have no inherent structure of command so one mod of lesbian-guitars (why do I feel a forum request on its way) should not simply overrule another mod of the same forum. Otherwise we get Mod-Wars (cue the t-shirt) and they spend all day in the mod control panel, banning and unbanning the same user.

If you have a genuine issue you bring it to an Smod or Admin, they can have a word with the mod and see what the issue is. They can ultimately over rule the mod and unban the user. If the mod rebans, the admin can remove the mods powers and reban. End of war.

I have to agree though that for some who hasnt been here for ages and is looking to get unbanned you are fairly aggressive about it....

Now does that answer you're questions?

DeV.

Terry

ok. you were not banned for being gay or black or any other silly reason, so stop bringing that up.
mods are far from infallible. we do sometimes make mistakes or act irrationally.
i disagree with some of the actions taken by the other AH mods, but i stand by their decisions, because it's their decision at the end of the day.

you will never get a mod to lift a ban by being aggressive or abusive.

Doctor J

Rozie you were banned for being disruptive, argumentative and compromising the enjoyment of the forum for the regular participants. You couldn't seem to accept someone having an opinion different to yours which resulted in the inevitable tedious consequences and necessary moderator intervention. I recall a few other threads on other forums with similar outcomes. I agree entirely with Feylya's decision, I would be reluctant to lift a ban until I see you participating in other forums without causing grief for the other participants.