Banned from Paranormal

6th

Boston wrote:

You've been specifically warned by the moderators of the forum.

2 of them warned me actually.

Boston wrote:

Your'e a special case...

Are you hitting on me?!

DublinWriter

6th wrote:

2 of them warned me actually.

Given the what the forum is all about...didn't you see it coming?!

Maybe you'll need to redesign your Tarot set with a new card called 'The Mod'.

Amz

6th wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055078889

There's a good example of a thread which has some back seat modding (telling someone to go read the charter) where I guess the post hasn't been reported and plenty of digs at the OP which are against the Charter.

Would I be banned for any of these offences?

I may be wrong, but this is the kind of thing that bugs moderators and can be considered back seat modding.

monkeyfudge

Pointing out backseat modding is backseat modding of the highest order!

6th

Amz wrote:

I may be wrong, but this is the kind of thing that bugs moderators and can be considered back seat modding.

Very possibly and if I had access I would report the offending posts rather than any other action I would have taken in the past. Of course meanwill the OP of the thread gets victimized and people blatantly break the charter.

As much as I plan to change my posting style when I return I hope that the charter will be altered in some way to include warnings against 'back seat modding' or whatever people want to call it.

6th

My point is that people are in there doing what I was banned for doing.

hullaballoo

You know as well as anyone else that it's the persistence of the offence that leads to the ban, not the offence per se. Anyway, since all bans are at all times discretionary, it's never an argument to say, "but mommy! he's doing it too".

tallus

Why not just take the ban and forget about it ffs, god this thread is bloody irritating and even after I skipped a few pages. What's the big deal ? it's only a ban from an online forum. Unless you think you're above the rest of us and shouldn't be banned or something?

6th

Good thing thats not what I am doing. I accept my ban at this stage but its actually funny when I see people doing what I did and no one batting an eye lid.

Crucifix

6th wrote:

Good thing thats not what I am doing. I accept my ban at this stage but its actually funny when I see people doing what I did and no one batting an eye lid.

Maybe no ones reported the post and the mods haven't seen it yet.

6th

tallus wrote:

Why not just take the ban and forget about it ffs, god this thread is bloody irritating and even after I skipped a few pages. What's the big deal ? it's only a ban from an online forum.

And yet you still come here and read it?

tallus wrote:

Unless you think you're above the rest of us and shouldn't be banned or something?

Wow you really did skip a few pages?

Maybe I should write it down on big pages in crayon for you?

GuanYin

6th wrote:

Very possibly and if I had access I would report the offending posts rather than any other action I would have taken in the past. Of course meanwill the OP of the thread gets victimized and people blatantly break the charter.

As much as I plan to change my posting style when I return I hope that the charter will be altered in some way to include warnings against 'back seat modding' or whatever people want to call it.

Right, I'm severely considering lengthening the ban because at this stage I'm thinking that you haven't learned a thing from the current ban at all and as such it hasn't served it's purpose.

You have posted complaining about inaction on a post from just before midnight on saturday. So apart from the fact, I have a life, you're bringing this up with the "oh if I had access I could report post but poor me and look how it's all falling apart without me"-attitude some 15 hours later, most of which most normal people would be sleeping through.

Seriously, cop on and grow up.

copacetic

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You know as well as anyone else that it's the persistence of the offence that leads to the ban, not the offence per se. Anyway, since all bans are at all times discretionary, it's never an argument to say, "but mommy! he's doing it too".

but surely it is reasonable to expect that in general the 'rules' would be applied equally to all? You might think that it is never an argument but I would guess that the average user would totally disagree.

GuanYin

copacetic wrote:

but surely it is reasonable to expect that in general the 'rules' would be applied equally to all? You might think that it is never an argument but I would guess that the average user would totally disagree.

It is, but sometimes context and history are just as important as any offence.

6th's main offence was to ignore repeated warning to stop doing what he was doing. He got a very light an for it. The incident that got him banned was innocuous in itself, but add X number of previous cases and X number of ignored warnings and you get yourself a ban.

I should point out "but he's doing it too" is not an excuse or justification for anything or anyone. You are the person soley responsible for your posts and actions on boards. It doesn't matter what anyone else does, if you screw up, you pay. In this case humanji was asked to use the report post, because he hasn't a long and tiring history of doing it. Incidently 6th, sometimes I PM people with warnings and requests, so you're not privy to who gets warned or not.

Very simply, if you have a problem with a post, use report post. Surely anyone capable of turning on a PC and loggin on to boards is capable of that simple concept.

copacetic

psi wrote:

It is, but sometimes context and history are just as important as any offence.

6th's main offence was to ignore repeated warning to stop doing what he was doing. He got a very light an for it. The incident that got him banned was innocuous in itself, but add X number of previous cases and X number of ignored warnings and you get yourself a ban.

I should point out "but he's doing it too" is not an excuse or justification for anything or anyone. You are the person soley responsible for your posts and actions on boards. It doesn't matter what anyone else does, if you screw up, you pay. In this case humanji was asked to use the report post, because he hasn't a long and tiring history of doing it. Incidently 6th, sometimes I PM people with warnings and requests, so you're not privy to who gets warned or not.

Very simply, if you have a problem with a post, use report post. Surely anyone capable of turning on a PC and loggin on to boards is capable of that simple concept.

sorry, I was making a general point about general fairness. I don't think it really applies here even if the OP is trying to make out it does, he is just flailing about for anything to try to make the mods in the forum look bad.

(imo of course, I am another one who was bored silly after one page or so of inane ramblings here so I may be all wrong on it)

hullaballoo

copacetic wrote:

but surely it is reasonable to expect that in general the 'rules' would be applied equally to all? You might think that it is never an argument but I would guess that the average user would totally disagree.

Do you really think that a system like that is workable? Do you think it would be better for bans to be arbitrarily handed down for any breach of the charter no matter what, just on the basis that it's a breach of the charter?

To my mind, that would be unfair.

Mod discretion exists just so that there's an element of pragmatism. Additionally, it's impossible to keep track of who you've banned, for what reason and for what length of time in the past, so precedents can't be properly established. Another reason is that some things just escape our attention from time-to-time.

copacetic

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Do you really think that a system like that is workable? Do you think it would be better for bans to be arbitrarily handed down for any breach of the charter no matter what, just on the basis that it's a breach of the charter?

To my mind, that would be unfair.

Where did I say that? Why don't I think of the poor children?

I said in "general the 'rules' would be applied equally to all?", note the 'in general'.

However since you raise it, I have to point out you make no sense at all. If bans were handed down for "any breach of the charter" it wouldn't be arbitrary, it would be for a breach of the charter. What
we have now is arbitrary. Do you even understand what 'arbitrary' means?

hullaballoo

copacetic wrote:

Where did I say that? Why don't I think of the poor children?

I'll be honest: I haven't got a clue what you're talking about here.

I said in "general the 'rules' would be applied equally to all?", note the 'in general'.

As above.

However since you raise it, I have to point out you make no sense at all. If bans were handed down for "any breach of the charter" it wouldn't be arbitrary, it would be for a breach of the charter. What
we have now is arbitrary. Do you even understand what 'arbitrary' means?

Capricious, illogical.

Confusingly, it can also refer to decisions made off one's own discretion, but if you look at the context, you'll see that's hardly what I meant.

copacetic

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Confusingly, it can also refer to decisions made off one's own discretion, but if you look at the context, you'll see that's hardly what I meant.

I don't know what you meant, all I know is you made absolutely no sense, but sure let on you didn't if you like..

fred funk }{

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hullaballoo

copacetic wrote:

I don't know what you meant

Of course you do. The semantics of the word "arbitrarily" don't make a blind bit of difference to the rest of what I said.

Anyway, I'm just not going to enter into a discussion about this because it's entirely irrelevant to the rest of the thread. There's no evidence that 6th is being treated any differently from anyone else, so as far as you're concerned, the rules are being applied equally.

6th broke the rules a few times. Then he was warned. Then he was banned. If the user in the thread 6th linked to was banned for a first offence, that would be inconsistent application of the rules.

6th

psi wrote:

Right, I'm severely considering lengthening the ban because at this stage I'm thinking that you haven't learned a thing from the current ban at all and as such it hasn't served it's purpose.

I have acknowledge the reasons I have been banned and stated that I will adapt my posting style on my return.

That however does not mean that I have to be in agreement with how the forum is handled. Now its looking like comments I make outside of the forum may afffect the length of my ban?

I will Pm the mods of the forum when 1 week is up, if you chose to lift the ban great, if you chose not to I suppose thats up to you guys.

Mr. Presentable

6th wrote:

Now its looking like comments I make outside of the forum may afffect the length of my ban?

Careful now! In the past I got banned from two fora for remarks I made in a third! Mods move in mysterious ways, our heads to wreck

6th

Thanks for the tip.

6th

6th wrote:

Now its looking like comments I make outside of the forum may afffect the length of my ban?

If you don't let something go in this feedback thread and annoy the mods even more on this subject,yeah they might doubt your sincerity and not let you back for a little while longer.I can see the logic in that.

I will Pm the mods of the forum when 1 week is up, if you chose to lift the ban great, if you chose not to I suppose thats up to you guys.

Well my advice would have been to take up a book a few posts back and to forget this thread exists,it's job was done ages ago.
It can be any book you like that you curl up to-just button your lip on this issue-all that needed airing has been aired from what I can see.
Theres no need to stoke it any more.

Boston

We're all beating about the bush here and I for one have had it. PSI doesn't have the balls to Perm ban 6th and that is that, he is afraid of 6th obvious powers. There I said it. Now let that be an end of the matter.

Of course I would look quiet the fool if PSI where to now go and perm ban 6th, quiet the fool indeed.

copacetic

Boston wrote:

We're all beating about the bush here and I for one have had it. PSI doesn't have the balls to Perm ban 6th and that is that, he is afraid of 6th obvious powers. There I said it. Now let that be an end of the matter.

Of course I would look quiet the fool if PSI where to now go and perm ban 6th, quiet the fool indeed.

I wish someone would quiet the fool alright.

Boston

Thats personal abuse, I demand someone ban him or throw tiggle winks or something at him.

marco murphy

6th Sees Dead People.




On a serious note, I always thought 6th was a mod. And as for scaring people away, he brought me onto the paranormal forum. He seems like a sound and easy going lad and should be auto-modded IMO. But thats just my opinion and I see dead people.

Zillah

That paranormal forum has caused nothing but trouble!!!