attention admins: politics charter query and bannng procedure positive or natural law

ISAW

edit- Summarised below

ecksor

Complaint too long. Summarise.

ecksor

Oh, and don't quote, just link to the posts / threads you're referring to.

ISAW

ecksor wrote:

Oh, and don't quote, just link to the posts / threads you're referring to.

Thread title: Ireland's need for scientists

Unsupported accusation:
http://www.nologin.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52955140&postcount=54

request to support it in post 60
request to supply evidence that i "made stuff up" = 66
accused of misrepresentation = 69
accused of "diversionary tactics" = 81
accused of "misdirection and "dishonesty" = 83
drew attention to the fact I didn't want to be insulted =91
banned from thread =92

Earlier thread: €3.8 Billion Investment in Science & Technology
for example see posts 33, 38,44.

For what was I banned?
How long is that ban meant to last?
The moderator won't disscuss it with me.

ecksor

Hm, I see you demanding a reference to Michael Kelly's report to IRCset, when I was able to find references to it with 10 seconds of google searching. That kinda makes you look like a timewasting fool. I shall review the thread in more detail tomorrow.

ISAW

ecksor wrote:

Hm, I see you demanding a reference to Michael Kelly's report to IRCset, when I was able to find references to it with 10 seconds of google searching. That kinda makes you look like a timewasting fool. I shall review the thread in more detail tomorrow.

If someone raises a report and says it says such and such it is for them to cite the reference. Especially when they claim to be an academic researcher. I asked for several supporting references. I got none if scant support. I supported my own claims.

Edit= sorry hoist on my own petard. I didnt supply the reference. Im not great at your search and reference system. especially when banned form the particular forum.

It progressed this way before:
Insulted and asked it be withdrawn
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51588190&postcount=44
Acknowledgement of insult but refusal in the following messages especially 48 where I am accused of lying.

I never got an apology and he never got a ban.

ecksor

ISAW wrote:

If someone raises a report and says it says such and such it is for them to cite the reference. Especially when they claim to be an academic researcher.

How do you justify this point of view? You are not being a referee for an academic journal when you participate in a boards politics thread. As far as I can see he gave enough information to find the source quickly. The politics charter explicitly deals with this and the information was easily found. It appears to me that instead of simply finding the information, you diverted the thread.

ISAW

ecksor wrote:

How do you justify this point of view?

It is a basic tenet of debate . But you are correct if I claim something I should support it and that in itself is a claim.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/irf.burden.html

Therefore it is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence to support it.

You are not being a referee for an academic journal when you participate in a boards politics thread.

So what? That's "called argument from authority". It is standard to debating that the person making the claimn should provide the supporting evidence. It matters not whether I am the Pope a referee for a journal or an unemployed drug addict.

As far as I can see he gave enough information to find the source quickly.

I didn't find it. But you are gnit picking. It wasnt just this "you claimed a report". If you read the thread you will see several instances of claims not being supported.

I will cite them to support that if you wish.

Furthermore the "minutes" referred to I have never seen! Where are they?

Are you now claiming that this easy to find report was the "minutes" referred to? I still have yet to see support for the claim that I was given minutes and acknowledged that.

The politics charter explicitly deals with this and the information was easily found. It appears to me that instead of simply finding the information, you diverted the thread.

Really? Your evidence is? You are claiming that because of a report (trivial to you (in the sense that it is common knowledge - I would say it isnt) since you refer to that part of the charter) to which I was given no reference I diverted a thread. Where is there any evidence for that?

How did I divert anything? Care to show me where? At least you are accusing me of something. I can tell you for a fact I know that didnt happen because I am honest and wouldnt divert away from acknowledging anything I was shown.

In fact if it was so then one could easily post that I was trying to avoid this whit a link to the "this".

I asked for support for the SPECIFIC claim (among other things) that PhD funding should be decanted to post docs and by how much. Where is there any support for that claim? Is it in the report you refer to? Where in that report.

To be honest [even though it is only part of the issue] I still cant find a direct source of the report to which you refer (in spite of several other points). Please post one of the "found in ten seconds" links you have to this report.

Are you saying I was banned for not finding this report and for attempting to ignore it in some way?

If so please tell me.

where was I "dishonest" or misleading or lying? All these accusations have been leveled against me. Have I no recourse to ask where I am accused of lying?

I though I was banned because I asked if I was being called a liar. I still dont know why I was.

So please why was I banned and for how long?

And what about the ad hominem to which I referred?

ISAW

ecksor wrote:

How do you justify this point of view? You are not being a referee for an academic journal when you participate in a boards politics thread.

Maybe i missed the point here. The point you make being about my comment "especially when others claim to be an academic" i.e. that non academics don't hold their authority. Well they get that authority by supporting what they claim don't they? That is the "especially" covered. As already pointed out, leaving out the "especially" they still have an onus to support their position.

And maybe I am a fool, but I honestly still don't know what or where this " IRCset report" is! I tried their web site http://www.ircset.ie/index.html and cant find the report. Do you ban people for being foolish? can you help me find it?

And can you tell me for what I was banned a month ago? And how long it will last?

ISAW

Another week gone by.
Still not told why I was banned permanently form three politics fora.
Still don't know how or when this ban might be removed.

I was informed I can also discuss this in feedback.
This is currently being discussed there. I suggest this be put on hold pending the outcomne of that but I have no problem continuing here if that is in order.

ISAW

The thread in feedback has now been closed.

I was led to believe that now I should have some means to appeal my permanent ban form politics.

It is quoite clear that the ban was permanent and the suggestion it was "indefinite" is not ironed out at least. I have been accused and sentences of no clear cut crime.


Since Vexorg has stated that the ban is permanent as far as he is concerned is there any point in me suggesting that you have an appeals process?

I still havent had any answer as to whether Tristrame discussed me prior to the mods discussing and banning me. I have evidence to support my position but can't post it to a locked thread.

Now it appears that in spite of originally being banned without any particular charges being laid against me and being banned according to an Smod for behaviour on a particular thread that AFTER that ban the mods of politics got together and decided to ban me permanently for "unlikable posting style".

So it appears that the sham process of appeals continues and a judge from the higher court Vexorg steps in and agrees with the decision before it has arrived on his doorstep for appeal. So the whole process of appeals is put into shamsville. who is going to criticise a fellow admin when he as already made a pronouncement? When has it ever happened?

but in orde to expose this "process" I continue and I now ask:

Is it fair to ban someone from politics because you have a personal opinion that they have a style of posting which continually criticises peoples opinions?
Even if that personal opinion is correct is it fair to ban someone?

Can you please tell me according to what part of the politics charter someone can be permanently banned for aggressive criticism and asking people to support their own claims?

And why didn't anyone address the personal attacks and rebukes against me both in the politics thread in question and in the feedback thread?

In the final analysis the reason given originally is unsupported and no reference to it exists in the charter and eventually the ban is for mods not liking my posting style because

1. I argue too much
2. I ask people to support their claims too much

No examples are given of how this is so or why this is wrong. apparently at least one of the admins agrees with this. I don't suppose any other admins are open to dissent?

This reflects badly on boards.ie.

The postings (some by mods) in feedback were callous and hurtfull. None of the ad hominem was addressed. The original ban came from a mod who had been requested to act on a personal attack. Rather than do that he banned the poster who was attacked [me] while admitting the other poster had got personal. He did nothing to the other poster (who it happens is also a mod).

The mods also came to a post hoc decision without any details of how they came to that decision. They claimed it was based on a single discussion thread but I pointed out I had been discussed before this thread. The mod in question then asked the thread to be locked. I have been accused of lying about this and calling mods liars. I have done neither and will produce the evidence I have that Tristrame did indeed refer to me as far as I can see it as far back as September 2006!

I would like Tristrame to address whether or not he discussed banning me before the particular thread which mods seem ot claim was the first time they discussed banning me. As for myself if someone is accused they should be told what the accusation is and shown the evidence. This applies also to Tristrame. I accuse him of discussing banning me as long ago as last September. It isn't for me to produce his personal mails on the subject. But there is evidence.

In short "the mods don't like you" isn't a good reason for a ban is it?

Beruthiel

ISAW wrote:

The thread in feedback has now been closed.

It was closed by an Admin. One of the owners of this site. His say is final.

ISAW

Beruthiel wrote:

It was closed by an Admin. One of the owners of this site. His say is final.

So the appeals process as outlined to me is a sham!
You don't have one really do you?

I was banned for "causing argument" in a politics forum! Because the mods of that forum believe that politics can't be discussed if there is someone who continually asks people to back up unsupported opinions! In spite of no rule saying this is n't allowed and in spoite of rules saying personal attacks are NOT allowed and in spite of me being personally attacked and nothing done about it!

Then I was told thee is an appeal process and I could discuss it with the mod who banned me, bring it to smods a general discussion in feedback and finally to admins.

the mod who banned me refused to even tell me the reason for it other than "arguing" in some undefined way without any specific example. He admitted I was personally insulted and told me he would ignored that complaint. The smod said he wouldn't change the decision but would take the issue up with the mod and that there was a process where I could get a fresh hearing (as outlined above). The feedback thread involved a number of callous remarks and personal insults e.g. (that I make people vomit!)

The mods meanwhile rather than explain the judgement met in secret while they gang up on me in the thread accusing me of all sorts of things like lying while at the same time not answering whether I had been discussed months before the time claimed as the first discussion on me. They then tell me they have banned me permanently in spite of the fact that this is meant to be an APPEAL and the judgement at the mod level has already been accepted and appealed to a higher level.

They level a number of accusations against me nothing to do with the particular ban and refuse to point out why the charge of "excessive argument" is in any way valid while ignoring other personal attacks.

Then a judge from the supreme level interferes with the appeal and gives his own opinion before it has even arrived at that level which makes the whole process look like a complete sham.

I really think it is obvious that the whole process is riddled with bias and is in no way fair or open.

I have no problem in people criticising me or arguing with me. But calling me a liar and saying I make them vomit while banning me for something I can't see any harm in while pretending that some sort of "fairness" exists in a sham process is something I can't tolerate.

I await the final judgement of the appeal and I expect it will show up this whole series of events as a complete travesty.

Nevertheless I hold out some hope that someone may have some sence. The odd poster (some of whom I personally disagreed with) did inject at least some reason into the feedback thread. I may well be some wisdom will prevail. But I really expect that no admit is prepared to agree with any point I have made, in spite of the fact that it is no doubt quite clear to their own conscience who has done any wrong and who is suffering for it.

ISAW

Beruthiel wrote:

His say is final.

But not necessarily correct! If he said something about me which is untrue it wouldn't make it right. Nor if he said something racist sexist or insulting. It may well be final but it isn't clear it is actually sound or valid or fair.

All I intend to do is accept it and preserve my dignity. I haven't been outspoken about my identity and that is the way I want it to remain. I also want people to be able to see the evidence I presented and make up their own mind on the way I was treated, even if they can't see the secret deliberations of others.

Aside from the final decision I only await two pieces of information.

1. Eksors claim to have found a report to IRCSET in ten seconds. I haven't seen this report yet.

2. Tristrame to actually answer the question that he didn't discuss me last September and not that the recent moderators discussion was the first time he (with other mods) did discuss me in relation to a ban as was claimed - something I don't believe to be true and I have evidence for and will produce it on request when I gat a straight answer to whether the first discussion about banning me was only in the last few weeks.

seamus

ISAW wrote:

1. Eksors claim to have found a report to IRCSET in ten seconds. I haven't seen this report yet.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=vHs&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Michael+Kelley+report+to+IRCset&spell=1
First result. Seriously. Couldn't be any easier. I even typed the name in wrong, and google prompted me with the correct spelling.

Asok

This is not real life. You have no "Right" to an appeals process, it’s the administrator’s site and what they say goes. In this case an admin has said nope stays banned so you stay banned and that’s that. Right now all you are doing is wasting both our time and yours. So I am closing this thread, do not open another one in relation to this issue.

hullaballoo

ISAW wrote:

politics charter query and bannng procedure positive or natural law

On the assumption that that's a question; the answer is positive law. Like it, or lump it.