Banned from a forum.

Diogenes

I was posting on this thread, One of the forum mods, made a rather fantastic claim (see post 19) He claimed to have "very substantial" evidence to support this claim. The evidence he presented, was, well, somewhat lacking, and I and other users pointed this out. The Mod, however, assured me there was better evidence and it would be forthcoming and then, at this, point he went quiet.

Over the course of a month I bumped the thread, twice, to ask him when he was planning on presenting this evidence. Eventually the Mod did respond to me, with an ad homien stating that he was getting ready to do so, but I wouldn't bother listening to him when he did so. I responsed, a little snippy, but nothing offensive, partially because it was the morning after the christmas party, and partially because I didn't appreciate his suggestion, seeing as I had entertained and, commented on, every link and video he'd posted on this thread.

I then discovered that I was banned from the forum. I recieved no pm notifiying me about the ban, the reason or it's length. When I pm'd the Mod to ask why, the mod in question responded that I had been banned, not because I had breached the charter, but because he didn't want me posting on this thread until he found time to respond in said thread. I have been given no timeframe as to when this will happen.

When I persued the mod via PM for such a timeframe, I was contacted by a Community Mod and asked to stop.

Perhaps the response the mod is waiting to post is an explanation of why I deserved to be banned. If this is the case, I still cannot understand why it has taken so long (it's been over a month since his original claim), but will accept that its just a timing problem. However, if this is not the case, then I cannot understand how this is acceptable behaviour for a mod.

I would appreciate others thoughts on the issue.

I am aware that it is common practice to point and laugh at posters who bring issues such as this to Feedback. However, I am doing so because I was told to do so rather than to continue trying to request information from the mods via PM.

Thank you.

Talliesin

Diogenes wrote:

I am aware that it is common practice to point and laugh at posters who bring issues such as this to Feedback.

Complaints about moderator actions shouldn't be put in feedback - which is for feedback on how boards is run rather than particular incidents in its running - but are normally left there as it is normally patently obvious that the OP is at fault and we can all have a good laugh at the little moron.

This is moved to Help Desk where it should be because you seem to have at least possibly some legitimacy in your post.

Now, I want to get to the bottom of this, and I want to stick to facts. As such I don't give a **** if someone is a community moderator, or a moderator of another forum. Using "community moderator" like it means something is only going to have the effect of reducing the patience of those who can help you.

Now, how about an immediate jump to peaceful resolution? Namely, we don't bother with the who-did-exactly-what and who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong and allow me to present the proposal to the moderator in question that you will drop the thread until such a time as he gets back to it himself and you be unbanned and hence able to pursue other threads?

miju doesn't have you PMing him about it, which has no doubt begun to piss him off no end.
You aren't banned, which is clearly pissing you off.
So on a practical level you might both be happy and on a personal level there's no loss of face, grandstanding or any of that other crap?

ecksor

Looks weird to me. Anyway, if you've been informed not to continue the matter via PM then I would expect the mods in question to explain their reasoning here.

ecksor

Moved back to Feedback. We've always allowed such threads on Feedback.

Talliesin

In that case miju can answer rather than my putting anything to him as suggested above.

Diogenes

ecksor wrote:

Looks weird to me. Anyway, if you've been informed not to continue the matter via PM then I would expect the mods in question to explain their reasoning here.

To explain this matter further.

When banned I recieved no pm. I pm'd both mod's of the forum when banned asking for explantion. Billy the Squid pm'd back saying he didn't do it, and would look into it. Leaving Muji as the person who banned me. Now leaving aside the holidays, which I did, I only sent the 2nd round of pm's after I checked both billy and muji had been online since I sent the first one, thats three pm's to muji before he pm'd to define the ban.

I pm'd back and forth several times for clarity and pm'd both mod's billy said he wouldn't discuss this behind muji's back, so I cc'd all pm's that I sent to muji to billy and fwd'd all from muji to billy. The terms of the ban were so vague and the timeframe was so vague as well (at one point biilly claimed the ban wasn't indefintive, I had to point out that if muji never posted on this thread, I would always be banned from this thread, and therefore is a textbook example of indefinitive).

Eventually muji got intractible and refused to discuss when he would post his reply and therefore could tell me the duration of the ban. Again call me cynical, I saw how most "why was I banned" feedback thread get laughed so didn't have any confidence to post to feedback. I pointed out to muji that seeing as he needed to write a response to lift my ban, I'd pm him a reminder (consisting of a request to when he'd write his response, a "fun debunked "fact" about the JFK assasination, and a "gentle" reminder he hadn't responsed) I sent two of these before being requested by seamus to stop which I did.

Talesin wrote:

Now, how about an immediate jump to peaceful resolution? Namely, we don't bother with the who-did-exactly-what and who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong and allow me to present the proposal to the moderator in question that you will drop the thread until such a time as he gets back to it himself and you be unbanned and hence able to pursue other threads?

I can happily show you the pm where I suggest that muji take my word that I will not post on the thread, or that he just locks the thread until he is ready to respond, as an alternative to banning me. He declined.

I think both of these are an abuse of power if an ordinary poster didn't like someone constantly posting on a thread he posted on, that poster couldn't stop people posting on a thread until he was good and ready to respond.

Boston

So you're banned are you're still hassling the mod to reply to some thread. Is that the long and short of it?

Diogenes

Boston wrote:

So you're banned are you're still hassling the mod to reply to some thread. Is that the long and short of it?

Wow someone isn't using january to detox, I'm banned for spurious reasons, for a time period that only the mod in question can sort out by posting his reply.

Talesin wrote:

Using "community moderator" like it means something is only going to have the effect of reducing the patience of those who can help you.

I merely mentioned the community moderator in that the fact that muji had stepped up his complaint and obviously got a CM to warn me.

Talliesin

Diogenes wrote:

I merely mentioned the community moderator in that the fact that muji had stepped up his complaint and obviously got a CM to warn me.

Wait a second. We don't have community moderators any more. Haven't for years.

Did you mean category moderator, specifically the relevant category moderator?

miju

you were temp banned as explained to you in multiple PM's for needlessy bumping threads as you were being incredibly impatient , you were told you would get my reply on the thread in question and as what i said was substantial i've plenty to back it up , however still compiling that as again you were already told

there was one point where i was actually going to lift the ban as i felt i may have been too hasty (as billy the squid was doing a great job as a mediator ) until you started with your "reminder PMs" and thinly veiled aggresiveness at which point i simply put you on my ignore list , billy warned you it would be permanent if he recieved any from you and made it clear that i'd be of the same view point (though fairs , fair you did stop when pulled up on it )

thats the short and curlys of the situation , and despite the nicey , nicey / reasonable approach from the OP i've still got the PM's sitting in my trash to show he was anything but reasonable and just threw a tantrum instead and at no point did he offer not to post in the thread in question, the reason the OP wasnt given a timeframe is quite simply that i haven't got one to give, i have a life and CT is something i pursue in my spare time as such its taking time to put all this together and to be quite frank i'm not gonna be rushing myself for posters like you tantrum or no tantrum

if someone else wants to lift the ban then ive no problems with that , such is the open nature of boards, however, i personally won't be hitting the unban button until i've finished putting together what you asked for as giving you behaiour up till now i doubt you'll keep your word, it's not a saving face thing as i really couldnt care that much as i've no problems being called on a banning

thats all ive got to say on it , do as you will admins

miju

actually one last thing

Diogenes wrote:

after the christmas party, and partially because I didn't appreciate his suggestion, seeing as I had entertained and, commented on, every link and video he'd posted on this thread.

not to stir up the argument again but thats tosh you said you'd watched the first 15mins of the video when i clearly stated in the post the relevant part of the video in relation to the thread was 30 odd mins in

Nietzschean

miju wrote:

however, i personally won't be hitting the unban button until i've finished putting together what you asked for , it's not a saving face thing as i really couldnt care that much it more to do with the fact that i have a life CT is something i pursue in my spare time as such its taking time to put all this together and to be quite frank i'm not gonna be rushing myself for posters like you tantrum or no tantrum

you could just lock the thread in question? he's been impatient but you did post something very sensational and it seems he's not alone in the thread in expecting you to back it up. just more insistant(though i don't see any warning before the ban from yourself over it), though in post #38 of that you nearly seem to be egging him in in his curiosity?. How about locking the thread till you have it collected? or just telling him you cba replying ever to the thread and he can keep his old opinions if he likes?

(though hassling via pm by the OP isn't exactly good form.....)

miju

Diogenes wrote:

I'd pm him a reminder (consisting of a request to when he'd write his response, a "fun debunked "fact" about the JFK assasination, and a "gentle" reminder he hadn't responsed) I sent two of these before being requested by seamus to stop which I did.

i don't call the getting spammed the following gentle or fun and i doubt anyone else would either and the irony was not lost on me either the fact that his debunked facts were back up with no evidence

original text layout of PM's from Diogenes wrote:

MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE

seamus

Talliesin wrote:

Wait a second. We don't have community moderators any more. Haven't for years.

Did you mean category moderator, specifically the relevant category moderator?

No, he means me.
miju queried what the next step was, as he felt that he was being spammed by Diogenes PMs.

I suggested to Diogenes that, seeing as he was getting nowhere with miju, take the next step and start a thread here or on the helpdesk.

miju

Nietzschean wrote:

you could just lock the thread in question?

i dont think the thread warranted locking as one person was bumping it and besides others where being well behaved and wy spoil the debate for everyone else

as i said i was going to go back on my decision as i figured i'd been hasty until the PM's began :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

seamus wrote:

I suggested to Diogenes that, seeing as he was getting nowhere with miju, take the next step and start a thread here or on the helpdesk.

didnt realise that was you seamus (thanks btw) , this was what both myself and billy had told him to do but he decided on the PM route

Diogenes

miju wrote:

you were temp banned as explained to you in multiple PM's for needlessy bumping threads

Needlessly bumping threads isn't aganist the charter. And it's one thread singular, where you made an astonishing claim with substanitating it.

as you were being incredibly impatient ,

I bumped the thread twice in a month long period, asking for someone to provide evidence in such a time frame, doesn't seem unreasonable.

you were told you would get my reply on the thread in question and as what i said was substantial i've plenty to back it up , however still compiling that as again you were already told

Again Miju you claimed you had substantial evidence in your response to my second bump, you didn't offer any.

So I have this clear, you ignored my first bumo, responded to my second by stating "you wouldn't bother listening to my evidence", and when I objected to you saying this, you banned me?

there was one point where i was actually going to lift the ban as i felt i may have been too hasty (as billy the squid was doing a great job as a mediator ) until you started with your "reminder PMs" and thinly veiled aggresiveness at which point i simply put you on my ignore list , billy warned you it would be permanent if he recieved any from you and made it clear that i'd be of the same view point (though fairs , fair you did stop when pulled up on it )

Again not to be funny, you claimed my ban would be lifted if/when you got onto writing a reply, you refused to give me a timeframe for when this reply would be writen. So I sent you a pm, twice, asking you to respond and write the post.

thats the short and curlys of the situation , and despite the nicey , nicey / reasonable approach from the OP i've still got the PM's sitting in my trash to show he was anything but reasonable and just threw a tantrum

Actualy how about the pm's before I got angry? Because you were being so obtuse. The pm's where I suggest we just let the situation go and I continue to post on the forum.

for example

me wrote:

You're behaving in an irrational manner, and rather than expose it to the wider community, I tell you what, I won't bump the thread to remind you that you've failed to provide the "very substantial" evidence, every few weeks, and continue posting on the forum.

(I can forward this to any Smod or Admin.)

instead and at no point did he offer not to post in the thread in question,

That is just untrue. I did and can forward the pm to any Smod or Admin you desire.

the reason the OP wasnt given a timeframe is quite simply that i haven't got one to give, i have a life and CT is something i pursue in my spare time as such its taking time to put all this together and to be quite frank i'm not gonna be rushing myself for posters like you tantrum or no tantrum

So if I have this clear you're stating that essentially I'm banned until whenever you decided to get around to posting your response, because you're just too busy to bother to do so.

if someone else wants to lift the ban then ive no problems with that , such is the open nature of boards, however, i personally won't be hitting the unban button until i've finished putting together what you asked for as giving you behaiour up till now i doubt you'll keep your word, it's not a saving face thing as i really couldnt care that much as i've no problems being called on a banning

Exactly what about my behaviour warrants this ban, in the first place?

not to stir up the argument again but thats tosh you said you'd watched the first 15mins of the video when i clearly stated in the post the relevant part of the video in relation to the thread was 30 odd mins in

Again muji thats not factual accurate, I switched off after the first fifteen minutes after watching them use the film JFK as an example of the "offical story" they literally used the "magic bullet" bit from the movie to demostrate the "offical story" The magic bullet story is a conspiracy theorist strawman, they claim it's the offical story, its not, the offical story is the single bullet theory of which I posted. I'm sorry if a documentary is going to lie repeatadly, make stuff up within it's first few minutes what insentive do I have to watch it in case the filmaker stops lying 30 minutes in?

i don't call the getting spammed the following gentle or fun and i doubt anyone else would either and the irony was not lost on me either the fact that his debunked facts were back up with no evidence

Oh rly?

I made two claims one. Perry Raymond Russo was telling story of "assassination party" in Baton Rouge. However Russo told no such story until brought to New Orleans, given "truth serum" and then hypnotized. And that jim garrison claimed his office was bugged, but never offered proof. I'm confused how am I supposed to provide evidence for the later when it never happened?


I do admit I sent two spammy pms to Miju,but I was frustrated, and I do not see how those pms justify the original ban.

billy the squid

Diogenes wrote:

To explain this matter further.

When banned I recieved no pm. I pm'd both mod's of the forum when banned asking for explantion. Billy the Squid pm'd back saying he didn't do it, and would look into it. Leaving Muji as the person who banned me. Now leaving aside the holidays, which I did, I only sent the 2nd round of pm's after I checked both billy and muji had been online since I sent the first one, thats three pm's to muji before he pm'd to define the ban.

I pm'd back and forth several times for clarity and pm'd both mod's billy said he wouldn't discuss this behind muji's back.

That is a lie.

I told you that I would not be lifting the ban until I knew the whole facts. I also told you that I had just moved into a new place and was offline at the time of your ban. (There is an AFK thread in the mod board relating to my offline time.) I also told you when you sent your second round of PM messages that Miju had yet to reply to my initial request for information.

You neglected to mention that you sent your second round of messages three hours into the first working day after the Christmas holiday.

What you did the night before is your own business. It does not justify you getting snotty with people just because something doesn't take the five minutes you want it to.

You started sending me CC'd messages to Miju which are still in my inbox, although luckelly I did not get the one quoted above.

As for being happy to post PMs I would be more than happy to post the PM where you referred to me as spineless for not lifting your ban because I was waiting for more information on it.

cast_iron

So what miju is saying is that he was banned for bumping a thread twice. Now on a quick look through the charter, I couldn't see anything that prohibited this.

What did go on was a bit of a childish spat, with Diogenes being the biggest baby.

Saying that, I think the original ban was plain wrong - it's one slim excuse.
Then you were equally as childish by keeping the ban for sending childish PMs.

From what I can see, I think miju knows he was wrong and is too stubborn to lift it.

Is there a toddlers forum this could be moved to?

oleras

Mod was wrong, plain and simple abuse of power, ban a user because they called you on something you could not back up ? i smell a conspiracy......or is that a dirty nappy ? :rolleyes:

killbillvol2

cast_iron wrote:

Is there a toddlers forum this could be moved to?

IMHO the mod's way out of order here. He made an outrageous statement and now that he can't back it up he bans Diogenes! (Who's not exactly behaving in an adult manner either).

Nevyn

Bumping threads is quiet frankly rude.
Hounding to post because you want them to is incredibly rude.

Rude behaviour is not civil behaviour and you are expected on boards.ie to post in a
civil and considerate fashion and that is site wide.
You won't find it said explictedly in the charters as it is ment to be understood.

Having read the thread you were being rude and trying to score points and show up another poster.
Clearly the topic is a favourite of yours and you were not happy to see it wind down,
so you decieded to harass the last person who had said they would post and got yourslef all worked up
about it looking for a confrontation and you got one.

You chose to flaunt the rules of the site by not posting in a civil manner and you recieved a ban for it.

You then carried this confrontational and going by that pm beligerant behaviour into pm.
Personally if I received a pm from anyone like the one above I would leave the
ban oh and it's time lenght would be so that it would be lifted when you died.

Mods have lives and quite frankly (as I have explained to my children clearly your mother never explained to you )
when you throw a tantrum you upset everyone else that is arround you,
you threw a tantrum on that forum and like a bold child were given a time out.

Harasshment vis pm a site banible offense.
miju billy and the squid if you want you could ask an admin to have a look at the pms to see if they are enough to warrent a site ban.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

The Sweeper

That's a nanny-state ban if ever I've seen one.

If a user makes wild claims on a thread, the mods will often ride them to support their claims. The difference is that the mods won't bump the threads, however. Still, Muji made a pretty wild claim - it's not unreasonable for anyone to demand evidence, especially given the forum's nature.

People who post on conspiracy theories are often very impassioned on their subject, and the whole point of conspiracy theories is that they're open to lots and lots of argument. If you don't want argument, close the forum.

Diogenes did behave badly further down the line after he was banned, but the concept of banning someone because you don't want to have to listen to them? That's flagrant abuse of your moderating abilities.

You simply cannot ban somebody just because you don't like what they have to say. If you're doing that, then you don't have the temperament to be a moderator. If you're going to moderate a forum on boards.ie, you need to be prepared to take the abuse that'll be meted out to you. You have the same platform to defend yourself as all of the other users. If the abuse gets personal, you have an escalation path to get the user banned. If you can't be bothered lending your time to responding to a user, then you don't have time to be a moderator.

I know well what it's like to mod and be pestered, abused, whinged about etc. etc. etc, and yes the moderators don't get paid. But here's the thing - you can say you don't get paid, and you don't have to be online all the time, and it's not your dayjob, and all of those things are perfectly fair points.

But here's another perfectly fair point - you don't have to be a moderator. It isn't a central pinnacle on which your life depends. If you don't have the time to support your arguments, if you don't have the time to respond to the complaints, read the posts, respond to the users and support your own posts to your own forum, then you don't have time to be a moderator.

Users can be arseholes. But every mod knows that when they take the job. If you're tired and cranky and the forum and a user is taking up what feels like too much of your time, you should be passing your modship to someone else, not reaching for the ban button.

Smellyirishman

Why does WeatherCheck get stick by the mods in Weather because of his sensationalist stories that he can back up. But the user gets banned when asking for backup to a sensationalist claim by a mod? I know, totally different circumstances but hey, fite da powah, right?

I say lift the ban. However, Diogenes should respect Miju's time and allow him to come up with his response in time without spurring him on in the thread or via PMs.

Thaedydal wrote:

Bumping threads is quiet frankly rude.
Hounding to post because you want them to is incredibly rude.

Bumping can be extremely beneficial to a lot of parties and is not always rude.

Let's say the mod of the fitness forum made a post claiming "I have found the secret to a great body with less than ten minutes work a day and at no financial cost" well, if he just left it at that I think a lot of the fitness visitors would be quite peeved and I would expect people to "hound" him for more explanation.

I think this line was breached when miju came back and said he was working on his response. This should have been enough and the hounding should have stopped.

kaimera

Thaedydal wrote:

Bumping threads is quiet frankly rude.
Hounding to post because you want them to is incredibly rude.

Rude behaviour is not civil behaviour and you are expected on boards.ie to post in a
civil and considerate fashion and that is site wide.
You won't find it said explictedly in the charters as it is ment to be understood.

Having read the thread you were being rude and trying to score points and show up another poster.
Clearly the topic is a favourite of yours and you were not happy to see it wind down,
so you decieded to harass the last person who had said they would post and got yourslef all worked up
about it looking for a confrontation and you got one.

You chose to flaunt the rules of the site by not posting in a civil manner and you recieved a ban for it.

You then carried this confrontational and going by that pm beligerant behaviour into pm.
Personally if I received a pm from anyone like the one above I would leave the
ban oh and it's time lenght would be so that it would be lifted when you died.

Mods have lives and quite frankly (as I have explained to my children clearly your mother never explained to you )
when you throw a tantrum you upset everyone else that is arround you,
you threw a tantrum on that forum and like a bold child were given a time out.

Harasshment vis pm a site banible offense.
miju billy and the squid if you want you could ask an admin to have a look at the pms to see if they are enough to warrent a site ban.

Jesus Christ, talk about backing one another up.

Firstly, if there's nothing against bumping threads, nothing can be done.

Might be 'rude' but thats your opinion. You stated it as if it was a solid fact/rule.

As for hounding?
Had the mod in question not made such a claim in the first place, it wouldn't have happened.
Surely the mod must have expected some sort of reaction and there was more than the OP questioning his claim.

Quite frankly, your 'muppet' card was out of order imo.

Boston

I side with miju

Nevyn

Everyone has thier take on this clearly and this thread at least shows that certianly all the mods don't have the same opinion or take on things.

If someone has an additon to a thread greats but bumping it just saying bump
or just asking the same questions again and again is only going to piss people off.

Smellyirishman

Thaedydal wrote:

If someone has an additon to ta thread gets

I assume that should read "If someone has an addition to the thread, great"? (I am not being condescending btw). In that case I think the OP did have an addition to the thread in seeking the evidence that would surely interest the CT contingency.

Thaedydal wrote:

but bumping is just saying "bump"
or just asking the same questions again and again is only going to piss people off.

Bumping may just be saying "bump" and it is usually to allow important/interesting information to be seen by more people or to ensure that answers to questions being asked are seen (mostly these are stickied though, unless the questions will only be coming in a short period of time, anyway...) and thus preventing the thread from falling off to another page and into the abyss of an internet forum. Considering the conspiracies forum does not reach beyond 1 page I think it is fair to say that the OP's "bumping" was hardly very rude or infringing on others as he was just trying to ensure a response to something he was interested in. His requests for such were reasonably timed, at least in the thread and did not really push any other threads down as they are all still on the same page.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the OP was entirely correct in the way he acted. I don't think he deserved to be banned though.

Anyway, there is my off tangent waffle for the day, it's been a nice study break.

Diogenes

Thaedydal wrote:

Everyone has thier take on this clearly and this thread at least shows that certianly all the mods don't have the same opinion or take on things.

If someone has an additon to ta thread gets but bumping it just saying bump
or just asking the same questions again and again is only going to piss people off.

I think you are taking things out of context. I sent muji several pm's suggesting a sensible alternative to the mater, and he would not listen. He's still not listening on this thread. I admit aftering trying to get him to see sense, I did send two childish pm's, but after being asked to stop I did so. So yes I'm man enough to admit I acted childish. Is miju?

If a mod in politics claimed SF were dealing drugs, and claimed he had substaintial evidence, but then nearly a month after making the claim hadn't put it foward, would it be acceptable for him to ban a user for bumping a thread? How about an after hours mod who claimed "all nigerians were thieves" and acted in the same manner as muji, would it be acceptable? If a soccer mod claimed that supporting Finn Harps gave you AIDs, and acted in the same manner as miju would it be tolerated?

I've found the quality of the moderation on boards.ie to be of a high standard. I just want to see that level to be applied across the entire forum. Muji has said he will not lift the ban, and he will not say when the ban will be lifted in a post on a different thread, in the same forum, five days after the ban he's said;

miju wrote:

this for when/if you come back diogenes

So now it's no longer a temporary ban it's now a potential permement ban despite, my not breaking the charter.

Look I'll admit I sent two childish pm's to miju only after being frustrated that he wouldn't talk about this in a rational manner, and doesn't seem interested in doing so still.

Nevyn

Look everyone has opinions and they are subjective, one person looks at a colour and sees green someone else see blue.

You disgareed over the nature of the edivdence and wether it was substantive or not and in such a situation you are never going to be able to resovle it,
you just have to learn to disagree and harping on saying 'prove to me it is green' and 'prove me wrong, show me it is not blue' will never resolve the issue and infact turns people agianst you at it makes you sound like prat.

You can't force anyone to post to answer your questions or to defend thier position.

If you were not getting the rapid response on the matter from the forum mods, you seemed have wished for ot tought youwere entitled too;
why didn't you start a thread here rather then sending childish harassing pms which have done nothing for your case at all only making you seem even more petulant and more of a prat ?

Mr. Presentable

My opinion, for what it's worth.

The mod abused his position and should not have banned the OP. MAJD is correct inasmuch as he/she observes if muji hasn't the time to mod he/she shouldn't mod.

The OP could/should have properly been banned for his/her subsequent behaviour.

Calling a poster a muppet would, I think, get me banned from most of the fora here. I expect better from such a highly respected mod as Thaed.