Unreasonable Mod

FionnMatthew

I've been referred here from the Feedback Forum:

Gordon wrote:

If you feel that you are being treated unfairly then feel free to open a Help desk ticket. Refer the helpdesk ticket to the super moderators and they'll take it from there.

I'm assuming that opening a thread here is what is referred to as a ticket?

I've been banned from the Edu/TCD Forum by moderator "Nietzschean". I was not informed by PM of this ban, and I PMd the mod to see if he could explain why he banned me. It is my belief that he is unable to justify his actions, and that he will not reply substantively to my questions. I therefore consider his decision invalid, and wonder whether it will be possible to have the ban revoked over his head?

This is the thread in which I supposedly warranted a permanent banning by my actions.

What follows is my correspondence thus far with Nietzschean, in PM format.

Me, in my first letter to Nietzschean wrote:

Query
Hi there!

Just thought I'd pop you a query.

Nietzschean(on the offending thread) wrote:

Louiville, Boston, Spectator #1 and FionnMatthew all banned.

Boston, Spectator #1 and FionnMatthew permnantly.

Louiville for 2 weeks.

Just wondering if you might see fit to informing me exactly why you banned me, and affirming that, precisely why it's permanent?

I wasn't flaming, advertising, trolling or any of the cardinal offences. I was rather civil, and had a consistent point throughout my entire contribution.

Reading the forum charter (as I did before I started posting there) the only instances where I could be seen to be in violation are:

TCD Forum Charter wrote:

- Replies should try to be on-topic. Although we understand that the nature of this Forum leads to off-topic replies and that off-topic replies can be entertaining it shall be at the sole discretion of the moderators as to how off-topic post will be dealt with.

But everyone you banned was seriously off-topic, including LouiVille. And you didn't ban LouiVille permanently. And some people you didn't ban were off-topic too, like Andrew and even you. So if it was under this charter rule, how can you justify a permanent ban in my case, when you didn't apply the same logic to others incriminated in the same way?

And further to this, you changed the name of the thread, and compiled the posts into the new thread prior to the banning, and so all of the posts on it were actually on-topic at the time of banning.

TCD Forum Charter wrote:

- Any complaints about any moderator should be taken up via PM or on the Feedback Board. Any posts here will be deleted and potentially the user banned.

This is the only article on which I can understand that you might have considered banning me. But I still think that if it is on this count that you banned me, it's a little bit overzealous.

What I wrote in the thread is a criticism of your moral conduct, of what you said to Spectator, and of your judgement of what was going on. It was a judgement on your behaviour, not on your administrative duties on the forum.

I said you behaved arrogantly. Yes, I think you could construe this as a violation of the charter rule, but I would have thought the charter rule is there to prevent people disagreeing publicly with the administrative actions of a moderator, (eg. banning, censoring, moderating, etc.) and not the purely personal conduct of the mod on the forum.

I would have thought that when a mod reads something wrongly, and of his/her own personal accord, lashes out in an irrational manner, that said mod should be subject to substantive criticism, and that this should not be construed as a violation of a charter rule, per se, but as an interpersonal interaction, a social thing. It's not a violation of a rule, it's just me criticising you for what you said.

If you did ban me by interpreting the charter rule in its strongest sense, then I think there's a critical ambiguity in the charter, and that it should be ammended.

I'd also like to request that you read back over the thread, and specifically my posts, and give me some justification for such a severe move.

Failing that justification, I'd like you to reconsider your action.

Thanks,
Fionn

Nietzschean's response:

Nietzschean, in response to my first PM wrote:

Re: Query
Louiville wasn't permnantly banned because he's a regular contributor to the board simply.


You and Spectator #1 were permnantly banned because that was entire ****e , and i'm pretty sure your the one person, or 2 m8's acting like twats, either way i've no desire to ever have ye post in the tcd board again. I'd make a long reply to your amazingly long pm but i'm tired and frankly i'd enough of reading long boring posts in that thread for one day.

My reply to this:

Me, in reply wrote:

Re: Query

11 more queries.

Nietzschean wrote:

Louiville wasn't permnantly banned because he's a regular contributor to the board simply.


You and Spectator #1 were permnantly banned because that was entire ****e , and i'm pretty sure your the one person, or 2 m8's acting like twats, either way i've no desire to ever have ye post in the tcd board again. I'd make a long reply to your amazingly long pm but i'm tired and frankly i'd enough of reading long boring posts in that thread for one day.

1. Are Boston and Louiville not the same person?

2. Why does regular contribution bequeath any immunity from banning? That's a little unfairly discriminatory.

3. Because that was entire what? All I see is ****e.

4.If it is, as I suspect, "shíte", then why isn't writing "shíte" an act forbidden in the charter? You can't expect people to be able to avoid bans if the conditions on which they are banned are not made clear to them beforehand so that they can avoid them.

5. I'm not sure that what I wrote was "shíte". I don't think "shíte" is something which is always self-evidently apparent. On what criteria do you deem what I wrote "shíte"? I have consistent academic evidence that the kind of thing I write is generally not "shíte". Perhaps you could explain to me why it is "shíte"?

6. Spectator#1 and I are not the same person. I am, in fact, Spectator#1's brother. Hence the same IP address. I don't think being his brother is a ban-worthy offence, and, if it was, you didn't specify it in the charter.

7. Even if I was his "m8" and not his brother, it wouldn't be a ban-worthy offence in itself.

8. "Acting like twats"? Could you please, for the love of reason, clarify yourself? "Acting like twats" is a) not forbidden in the charter, and b) not a very specific description of what annoys you. What specific thing about the way I conducted myself made you ban me? Please, tell me. Communicate with me, instead of slinging names at me.

9. Is it enough for you that you have no desire for me to post in your forum again? Or do you have some theory or justification by which you think I deserved being banned? Do you just moderate according to personal whim, or do you have a code of conduct by which you judge whether or not your decisions are right? As a moderator, I don't think your personal desire is enough. You should be able to justify it objectively. Can you do that for me?

10. Please, please, please do make a long reply to my pm. Take the time, even if you feel tired. Justify your decisions to me in a way you think I might understand them, instead of carrying on like a spiteful infant. Prove to me that you are not an impulsive, hasty person, who doesn't deserve any responsibility at all. Give me some insight into the way you are behaving. Prove that you can actually read what I asked you. How can you be sure that you are right in your actions if your don't take the time to address and humour the rational, civil objections of your opponent? I don't mind if it takes a few days, but please do take the time to reply - you should consider it as part of your duties as a moderator.

11. All of the questions in my last correspondence still stand, and I would like you to answer them. I really would like you to answer them. I'm not slinging you along, and I'm not having a go at you.

thanks,
Fionn.

Nietzschean's reply:

Nietzschean wrote:

Re: Query

11 more queries.

Do i get no peace?

1. Are Boston and Louiville not the same person?

Yes, hence why one was permabanned, why he wasn't site banned for it ages ago is a long story that goes well over my head control wise.

2. Why does regular contribution bequeath any immunity from banning? That's a little unfairly discriminatory.

Not really, in mine, and my fellow moderators view you've added nothing to our bored, posted on 2 days backing up your brother in an arguement, this doesn't exactly lead me to believe your ever likely to contribute anything usefull. Louiville on the other hand has in the past and reguarly does. Experence isn't discrimination is it? i don't really care if it is btw.

3. Because that was entire what? All I see is ****e.

4.If it is, as I suspect, "shíte", then why isn't writing "shíte" an act forbidden in the charter?

Actually the charter specifices everything is up to the moderators discression, and guess what, thats me!

You can't expect people to be able to avoid bans if the conditions on which they are banned are not made clear to them beforehand so that they can avoid them.

O please, yourself and your brother just backed each other up with a constant stream of circular arguements of drivel, you can't expect me to make definitive rules of do and don't so you can just try go around them while making our fourm painfull to read, so nopeeeeeesies. moderators discression.

5. I'm not sure that what I wrote was "shíte". I don't think "shíte" is something which is always self-evidently apparent. On what criteria do you deem what I wrote "shíte"? I have consistent academic evidence that the kind of thing I write is generally not "shíte". Perhaps you could explain to me why it is "shíte"?

I deem it to be what me, the other moderators and heck all the regulars deem it to be apparently so i dunno if you don't realise its ****e i don't have the english skills to explain it to you.

6. Spectator#1 and I are not the same person. I am, in fact, Spectator#1's brother. Hence the same IP address. I don't think being his brother is a ban-worthy offence, and, if it was, you didn't specify it in the charter.

Heck its close enough as far as i'm concerned, you've both only posted a handfull of times, and normally in concert agreeing and backing each other up, no way i can prove your not the same person, and i've no incentive to try.

7. Even if I was his "m8" and not his brother, it wouldn't be a ban-worthy offence in itself.

Tag teaming with a m8 like that when neither of ye are regulars with endless boring posts i think should mean sitewide bans but i don't make those rules.

8. "Acting like twats"? Could you please, for the love of reason, clarify yourself? "Acting like twats" is a) not forbidden in the charter, and b) not a very specific description of what annoys you. What specific thing about the way I conducted myself made you ban me? Please, tell me. Communicate with me, instead of slinging names at me.

I said you were acting like a twat, i never said you were one, don't accuse me of slinging names at you. I'm not quoting your amazingly boring posts, needless to say circular arguements which you and your brother and louiville kept on going much to everyones dismay was plenty.

9. Is it enough for you that you have no desire for me to post in your forum again? Or do you have some theory or justification by which you think I deserved being banned? Do you just moderate according to personal whim, or do you have a code of conduct by which you judge whether or not your decisions are right? As a moderator, I don't think your personal desire is enough. You should be able to justify it objectively. Can you do that for me?

Your opinion of my moderation is so immaterial to me is shocking, but none the less, it wasn't just my opinion that ye should be banned, it was pretty much everyone i talked to too. So justification is taking a thread and happily just turning it into muck, you've had no constructive input to the board ever, don't appear to be trinity students, so well i've no reason to ever let ye back in.........

10. Please, please, please do make a long reply to my pm. Take the time, even if you feel tired. Justify your decisions to me in a way you think I might understand them, instead of carrying on like a spiteful infant.
spitefull infant eh? super. Its certainly a new one.

Prove to me that you are not an impulsive, hasty person, who doesn't deserve any responsibility at all.

While i had to wait all day due to work before banning you lot so it wasn't impulsive or hasty, i probally don't deserve responsiblity, but heck what ye gonna do ?

Give me some insight into the way you are behaving.

I dunno ask my phsycologist if i ever have one in 20 years.

Prove that you can actually read what I asked you.

I may not be able to spell but i can assure you i can read, as horribly painfull as it is to read your posts i've read most of most of them....

How can you be sure that you are right in your actions if your don't take the time to address and humour the rational, civil objections of your opponent? I don't mind if it takes a few days, but please do take the time to reply

I'm not, but i frankly don't but that much thought into my actions so it doesn't bother me if they are stupid.

- you should consider it as part of your duties as a moderator.

Back to this again, i really don't care what you think should be part of my duties, why is it always the new people who think they know what should be everyone's responsibilities on here?

11. All of the questions in my last correspondence still stand, and I would like you to answer them. I really would like you to answer them.

Tough banana's tbh, it was long and boring as i said, i've replied to this one, if you keep stuff consice in future correspondence i might read it all, but spralling pages no thanks.

I'm not slinging you along, and I'm not having a go at you.

Calling my actions infantile isn't really going to help your case...

If you read through the thread, and then read the replies, I think you'll agree that this ban has been made hastily and impulsively, and that the mod cannot properly justify his actions. I move that this mod is unreasonable and incapable, and that his decisions are void. Of specific note, I think, in the context of mods, is his admission that "i frankly don't but that much thought into my actions so it doesn't bother me if they are stupid.".

What should be my next move?

hullaballoo

I will deal with this tomorrow. I still consider myself CMod in Edu along with crash_000, so between himself, Nietzschean and me, we will come back with an answer for you.

Having read the thread, and the PM conversation, I'm surprised at the outcome. I am tired though, so I might be missing something.

Beruthiel

The petty bitching alone makes me want to cry.
I'm not sure a perm ban was warrented, however, you all could do with a little rest from the forum itself. Go out side and breath in some fresh air.
The sky didn't fall in and nobody died.

seamus

I'm going to leave this to hulla's more than capable hands, but for the record;

You can't expect people to be able to avoid bans if the conditions on which they are banned are not made clear to them beforehand so that they can avoid them.

We can and do. Specifying exactly what will get you a ban leads to people attempting to find loopholes and saying "You can't ban me, you didn't say it was wrong!".

Charters usually outline some things that will definitely get you banned (e.g. Trying to sell stolen goods on the For Sale forums), but then just give some general guidelines for being a constructive poster. The general guideline for all users is that if you are being disruptive, deconstructive, or otherwise acting in a manner which is upsetting a thread or a forum, you will be subject to bans or other sanctions from those forums.

As Beruthiel says, going outside, having a beer and few breaths of fresh air may help. It's only a message board.

FionnMatthew

seamus wrote:

I'm going to leave this to hulla's more than capable hands, but for the record;

We can and do. Specifying exactly what will get you a ban leads to people attempting to find loopholes and saying "You can't ban me, you didn't say it was wrong!".

Charters usually outline some things that will definitely get you banned (e.g. Trying to sell stolen goods on the For Sale forums), but then just give some general guidelines for being a constructive poster. The general guideline for all users is that if you are being disruptive, deconstructive, or otherwise acting in a manner which is upsetting a thread or a forum, you will be subject to bans or other sanctions from those forums.

As Beruthiel says, going outside, having a beer and few breaths of fresh air may help. It's only a message board.

Point taken. The charter shouldn't have the burden of specifying every ban-worthy condition. However I still think that ambiguities in the charter should be avoided, like the one I mentioned in my first letter to Nietzschean.

Besides this, I'm questioning the judgement of the mod in question. Consistently, he's accused me of "circular arguements of drivel", and of "being a twat". This isn't a very substantive description of the reasoning behind his action. If you'll excuse my saying so, I don't think he'd know a circular argument if it hit him in the face, and is hence unqualified to accuse me of circular argument.

I think, reading over my posts, anyone with a reasonable quotient of literacy will see that I wasn't contributing "****e". Nietzschean would appear to have decided what I wrote is "****e" because he has a prejudice against well-written, communicative English. He wouldn't know a proper argument - his reading comprehension/concentration, or verbal stamina isn't up to it. How that is deemed suitable for a moderator on a forum on which all communication is forwarded through text is beyond me.

Besides all of this, he has as much as admitted that he doesn't really think about why he does things, and doesn't really care if he bans people without reasonable cause. He is supposed to be a moderator not a tyrant. I appreciate the moderator discretion rule, but I'm saying that he is too indiscrete to be empowered by this rule. Thus far, his actions, including his own post on the offending thread, have been inflammatory in nature, and have not had a moderating influence.

I think the thread, and the above correspondence, demonstrate that Nietzschean is incompetent, illiterate and irresponsible, and, as such, should not be empowered to make decisions such as the one he made concerning me.

hullaballoo

I'm in correspondence with Nietzschean and crash about this, and we're sorting it out. There are one or two things that I will say now though.

First and foremost, literacy is not, nor should it be, a criterion under which moderators on this site are assessed. In fact, people who address literacy on this site are frowned upon by most people here, which is correct to my mind. Someone's ability to spell is not precursive to their ability to mod. Not at all at all.

Secondly, your posts are tedious to read because of their length, and often, when someone sees a long post, they think that it is an angry or emotive post. Personally, I read posts as they're written, but not everyone does this, and it can sometimes lead to problems.

Finally, a permanent ban does seem disproportionate to me from what I've read. I think that there should be at least some warning before a permanent ban, although, like seamus, I've no problem with a straight-up temporary ban without warning.

Anyway, I'm waiting for the other Cat Mod to get back to me.

FionnMatthew

I just wanted to reply to some of what you said.

hullaballoo wrote:

I'm in correspondence with Nietzschean and crash about this, and we're sorting it out. There are one or two things that I will say now though.

First and foremost, literacy is not, nor should it be, a criterion under which moderators on this site are assessed. In fact, people who address literacy on this site are frowned upon by most people here, which is correct to my mind. Someone's ability to spell is not precursive to their ability to mod. Not at all at all.

Agreed! By and large, literacy is not so important. When it comes to matters of spelling, it doesn't impede a moderator's duties overmuch, except pehaps to undermine their authority a little. That's not exactly what literacy means though. Literacy includes an ability to read, and to comprehend written English. And in a broad sense, literacy is the ability to comprehend language in general - even spoken language. It is in the broad sense that I use the word.

I think there's a certain rock-bottom level of reading comprehension, below which a moderator just cannot perform the duties requisite of a moderator. For instance, banning someone for "circular arguments", when the argument is certainly not circular, demonstrates a lack of ability to read and comprehend the content of the argument, and is characteristically unfair and un-moderator-like. A moderator like this will be unable to moderate anything but the most banal of text-conversations with any propriety.

I think that, in the sense in which I am talking about literacy, and in this context, frowning on point of the spelling-is-unimportant principle would be foolhardy.

hullaballoo wrote:

Secondly, your posts are tedious to read because of their length, and often, when someone sees a long post, they think that it is an angry or emotive post.

This is new to me. Personally I welcome a long post when I am reading. I find long posts are generally more interesting.

My posts are largely long because I try to express myself exactly. So often text can be ambiguous, and I don't like being misinterpreted.

I don't think it is enough to stereotype me an an angry/emotive poster on the basis of a preconception about long posts. Certainly a moderator who operates on that principle is a loose cannon.

hullaballoo wrote:

Personally, I read posts as they're written, but not everyone does this, and it can sometimes lead to problems.

Those problems shouldn't be made my problems. I don't create them.

Thanks for your time.

ecksor

Aye aye aye. I see some short essays being passed off as posts, along with some incredibly pedantic nittery [*]. Now I'm short a mod for TCD.

[*] Not actually a word. Go nuts.