General election coming and I don't know why I was banned form politics

ISAW

I took this to the help desk a week ago and still haven't got an clear answer.
Apparently I can also post the feedback forum.

I was banned from politics. Apparently the ban was because of someting I might do i.e. specifically that might get personal in the specific thread with one of three posters.

I was posting to a thread about science funding. I had been directed there from elsewhere. The posters above claimed to have personal experience of working in science and that therefore my opinion was not as good at theirs. I claimed this was argument from authority and that mine was not opinion but fact based on reference. One claim in particular was that we should have less people doing doctorates and fund post doctorates more. I asked how muchg less and how many more. I provided the stats for the other person to say how many more. I was accused of lying dishonesty diverting the thread and a number of other things. the point I made was I had arrived later and disagreed with THEIR claim and they had to support their claim. Buty i supported my counter claimn anyway.

A similar argument before, on the same subject, resulted in numerous personal attacks on me. I got no apologies and the other people were not banned.

Eventually, when i was accused several times of deceit i asked "if you are calling me a liar you had better say so" A moderator Oscar Bravo stepped in. I PMed him, removed the request to say so about me being a liar told him I had no fuurther interest in posting theat thread and he banned me from three politics fora.

When I asked what I was banned for I was shown no rule and also told the other poster had "got a we bit personal". the other poster conbtinued to post. I appealed to an Smod and was told the ban was about I might get personal. I found this ludicrous.

I didnt agree with the ban. I told the mod Oscar Bravo so and that sinmce he wouldnt reply there was nothing more to be said between us on it. three weeks later I told him I still didnt know what I was banned for and asked him to remove it.

He refused. He said ciorstumstances (which I havent been informed of) hade not changed.


Thread title: Ireland's need for scientists

Unsupported accusation:
http://www.nologin.boards.ie/vbullet...0&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.


References to this and other thread on same issue
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.

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

What was I banned for? How long will it last?

DeVore

Your link doesnt work.

Have you pm'ed the mods?

DeV.

gandalf

ISAW quit you whining you have been told why you have been banned in numerous post by the other Politics mods.

Dev check this thread out on the Politics Mods board re this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055071587

muffler

As Dev said the link doesnt work and even if it did I doubt if too many would be interested in reading through the sheer volume of posts.

Your case is that you have been hard done by. You have been insulted. Persoanl attacks and accusations have been made about dishonesty etc. You were banned but were never told why. The mod refuses to reply to PM's. etc etc.

You tell us you have done nothing wrong. Very strange. Without being able to acess the thread in question I would take a guess and say that you are not whiter than white in all of this. The one thing that I did see was where you said you asked for an insult to be withdrawn when in actual fact you demanded that it be withdrawn. You are not being very truthful are you.

I would suggest that you log out, re-read the thread and see where you went wrong. Then PM the mod, apologise and ask that the ban be lifted.

ISAW

DeVore wrote:

Your link doesnt work.

Have you pm'ed the mods?

DeV.

oops sorry my mistake
http://nologin.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52952644&postcount=41


As I understand it the process is to first attract a mod to your problem, then if they are personally involved or you don't agree with them to appeal to an smod and eventually to admin. maybe people are not aware of that process or mayby I am wrong about it?

Yes I pm the original mod. He didn't point to any rule i had broken. He refused to discuss the matter further. Some time later then was in touch with an s mod whom I think contacted the original mod. He seemed to listen and tried to address the situation. Still couldnt tell me what I did wrong or how long the ban is for. It also seems to me he thinks it isnt his place to reverse the decision of a mod to ban someone or to set any duration to a ban.

So then I went to help desk. I was told I could post help desk and here. After another wek and still no reason (actually a new reason emerged - that I was "diverting the thread". I assume this means going off topic. Oddly I was never accused of this in the original ban but iot ios something I also reject. Oh and "timewasting" also arrived as a new issue. Apparently there is a report which is easy to get an I kept asking for it. but I still don't know where this report is. I asked the people who say it is easy to find to show it to me and I still havent got a reference to this report.)

What did I do wrong?
How long will it last?

6th

My advice would be to forget about the "why" and just try get an answer to the "how long". Whether you are right or wrong isn't an issue, if they want to find a reason to ban you they'll dig one up easily enough.

Best of luck finding out if/when the ban will be lifted.

ISAW

gandalf wrote:

ISAW quit you whining you have been told why you have been banned in numerous post by the other Politics mods.

This is just not true!
Why are you stating this when you know it is not true?

I have NOT been told why I have been banned in numerous posts by the other Politics mods!

You are one of these Politics mods. You never PM me or addressed this issue
did you? Which OTHER politics mods did?

As far as I know I only discussed the issue with ONE politics mod. In fact I initiated the discussion with Oscar Bravo before I was banned and I posted the thread no more after I initiatd that personbal discussion. Oscar Bravo subsequently banned me!

As far as I know the process is then to appeal to a higher authority or maybe the other mods.

Since that time (and before it with the exception of Oscar Bravo) I did NOT contact uberwolf, sceptre, Tristrame, Rock Climber, oscarBravo, or you gandalf about this ban! Are there OTHER politics mods you suggest I contacted because I dont know of any more and you are telling me I discussed this matter of Oscar Bravo's ban with the other maod and they told me what the reason for the ban was.

could you tell me Gandalf if they told me the reason and duration of the ban why am i now asking about the reason for it?

[hint]Maybe:
1 I don't know the reason for it or the duration.
or even
2. I do have some idea of a vague reason and disagree with it.

You are suggesting 1 is a lie and I am not entitled to 2.

1. Is not a lie! and as regards 2 I have pointed out what I understand the process of appeal to be. Are you stating this understanding is wrong? Where is it wrong?



Dev check this thread out on the Politics Mods board re this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055071587[/QUOTE]

Sadly it appears I can't counter argue since I don't have access to that link!

What rule did I break?

What is the duration of the ban?

ISAW

6th wrote:

My advice would be to forget about the "why" and just try get an answer to the "how long". Whether you are right or wrong isn't an issue, if they want to find a reason to ban you they'll dig one up easily enough.

Best of luck finding out if/when the ban will be lifted.

This is helpfull. Thank you. I admire you ability to put aside personal differences and at least try and deal with an issue fairly. You certainly have my respect even if i might disagree with your opinion in future. Sadly I do not feel so sure about the "appeals system" here but I don't want to be accused of contempt.

So far it seems I have had accusations made after the fact, no clear indication of what I was charged with doing, and no idea of the penalty involved even in spite of not knowing for what I was being punished.
Bizzare!

Would you care to bet my posting ability to politics will be restored after the election is over?

The_Minister

ISAW wrote:

Would you care to bet my posting ability to politics will be restored after the election is over?

Are you saying that you think the ban was politically motivated?

Blowfish

The_Minister wrote:

Are you saing that you think the ban was politically motivated?

/me pulls up chair and grabs popcorn

ISAW

The_Minister wrote:

Are you saying that you think the ban was politically motivated?

Nope. I haven't stated that. I wouldn't accuse without evidence.
[sightly different issue:
But if you mean politically in the sense that I think people have discussed me (in particular mods) between themselves then I have my suspicions. I also have evidence which does not mention my name . "we all know who I mean" type nod and wonk stuff, and mods saying "we are keeping an eye on him" type replies. I didnt want to post that person and say "if you mean me then please say so". I avoid anon chatachter assination on rumour mongers.

Do you want the reference?
I'll post it here.
Then you can ask the Op in a Pm and see and see if the mod is willing to say he was speaking about me and make up your own mind if that "have it in for me". I don't mind what they think of me as long as we all follow clear rules and they are fair about it and it doesnt affect their judgement or they are not in a cabal defending "group think" self interest.

End separate issue of whether they like me or not]

Whatever the reason going by the fact that in a month I havent been able to ascertain the reason or the duration for the ban would it really surprise you if I don't get to post right through the election campaign?

seamus

ISAW wrote:

Still couldnt tell me what I did wrong or how long the ban is for.

Let's just state this again for the benefit of everyone reading. You were given a reason for the ban. It just didn't conform to what your idea of a "reason" was - i.e. you want someone to point to a rule and say "You broke that". I explained that the ban was more preventative than punitive (which is a valid course of action), and so you're not going to get the type of reaosn that you desire. You were also given a "duration", but again you didn't get the answer that you wanted. "Indefinite" is a duration. The ban will last for as long as you fail to understand why it was imposed, that's my understanding of the action.

It also seems to me he thinks it isnt his place to reverse the decision of a mod to ban someone or to set any duration to a ban.

You'll find that all of the Smods and Admins will share a similar view. The purpose of the Smods are caretaking duties, in general. We are here to provide advice to other moderators if needed, perform sitewide moderation duties (banning spammers & cleaning up after them), and fill in for any other moderator if they are unavailable. We will also consult/mediate in disputes between users and/or moderators. We are not here to "Moderate the moderators", and I personally will never overturn another moderator's action. I will however discuss any objection or concerns I have about their actions, if necessary.

ISAW, if you feel that there were other motivations in imposing a ban, then feel free to PM myself or one of the other Smods or Admins in confidence to discuss said concerns.

6th

ISAW wrote:

Would you care to bet my posting ability to politics will be restored after the election is over?

I'd say you got it right with this line. I'd say kick back and enjoy the break ... its lovely outside!

ISAW

seamus wrote:

Let's just state this again for the benefit of everyone reading. You were given a reason for the ban. It just didn't conform to what your idea of a "reason" was - i.e. you want someone to point to a rule and say "You broke that".

No the reason I was given as far as I can see it was that I "might" do something against the rules! this is what i refer to as "thought crime" . there was no "act" I actually did . I was punished on the basis that I might personally attack someone.

Now THAT is not a reason at all is it?

I explained that the ban was more preventative than punitive (which is a valid course of action), and so you're not going to get the type of reaosn that you desire.

No it isn't a valid reason! Can't you understand why? One can't be convicted of a crime one has not yet committed! especially when the "crime" doesn't exist in the charter!

And the reason "because I felt like it and I don't like you anyway " isn't a valid reason either. should people also be banned on that basis?

You were also given a "duration", but again you didn't get the answer that you wanted. "Indefinite" is a duration.

So you now have rules which nobody can point to which have penalties which nobody can see?

Please look up the word. It means not of any certain duration. I.e. it ISNT a duration! The duration is "not defined"! And when I requested the nature of this indefinate duration I was told it was based on my understanding of what I had done wrong! And when I asked what it was I had done wrong I was told that isnt defined either! And all the while there is apparently some "charter" which people follow but

- I am not shown anything in the charter I broke
- I am actually told not everything is in the charter

Eventually I am told that because nothing has changed this indefinate ban (for which ther is no broken rule) remains indefinate. So what is the difference between a indefinate ban for no valid reason and a permanent ban for no valid reason?

The ban will last for as long as you fail to understand why it was imposed, that's my understanding of the action.

It's mine too! Why was it imposed? for what reason? apparently it was for someting I MIGHT do! I understand that and you restate it above. I don't agree with it but I clearly understand that it was for no written thing in the charter and because a mod felt I MIGHT do something i.e. I MIGHT personally attack others in a particular thread. This by the way AFTER I posted i had no intention of posting that thread. Do you begin to understang the difficulties of convicting someone for a crime they might do and awarding an unknown penalty based on their understanding of the un committed crime?

You'll find that all of the Smods and Admins will share a similar view.

You are their spokesman then and speak for them? Well I.m surprised that they believe in post hoc rules but I still don't know what I am not supposed to understand. If I understand the ludicrous reason for the ban why isnt it lifted?

The purpose of the Smods are caretaking duties, in general....

off topic. their purpose is not at issue . Why I was banned is.

We are not here to "Moderate the moderators", and I personally will never overturn another moderator's action.

do you accept my analysis of the appeals process as I outlined it? If not so where am wrong?

ISAW, if you feel that there were other motivations in imposing a ban, then feel free to PM myself or one of the other Smods or Admins in confidence to discuss said concerns.

Having just stated you would not overturn the ban I would not think that of any benefit to restoring my posting ability would you?

I won't skulk around and join any rumour mills or gossip circles either.

Blowfish

Sums it up tbh.

oscarBravo

When I banned you on March 27, I said:

I've removed your access to the Politics forum, as you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument. When you've convinced me otherwise, I'll restore your access.

Based on the twelve private messages I've received from you since then, your Help Desk thread, your contribution to another thread on this forum, and now this thread, I think you've done an admirable job of making my case for me.

I don't have an issue with you personally; I know nothing about you. As for having the ban lifted after the general election: it's not going to happen either before, during or after the election, unless you meet the simple criterion I've set out.

Sesshoumaru

oscarBravo wrote:

When I banned you on March 27, I said: Based on the twelve private messages I've received from you since then, your Help Desk thread, your contribution to another thread on this forum, and now this thread, I think you've done an admirable job of making my case for me.

I don't have an issue with you personally; I know nothing about you. As for having the ban lifted after the general election: it's not going to happen either before, during or after the election, unless you meet the simple criterion I've set out.

You heard the man!! You need anger management classes and a letter from your doctor saying you've attended them

GuanYin

and people say that *I* post in a condescending manner. I'm an amateur by comparison.

Seeing as I'm being accused of all sorts, I'll just make a couple of comments.

1. Your posting style doesn't actually lead to any debate. You take a post, highlight points you don't agree with, offer no counter arguement, but merely demand proof, citing some archaic notion - many people find that rude and annoying. If you want to argue a case, do so but don't try push court law on an internet BBS.

2. I accused you of posting in a dishonest fashion. This is because you operate (maybe unknowingly) a fog of war style of debate. ie:

Poster: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy hen.

You: I demand you show me proof that all brown foxes are quick.

That is, you ask for "proof" for points that the person you are debating with, neither said nor referenced. This looks, from the outside to be a diversionary tactic, which is what I pointed out at the time.

This may not be intentional on your part, your posts tend to be so long and rambling that I often forget what the hell your point is before I finish the post.

In any case, I think if you learn to post succintly and on topic without treating boards.ie like a court of law then you may get to where the mods think you should be.

Incidentally, I didn't request your ban nor make any complaint about you.

muffler

ISAW, you are doing the exact same here as you did in the thread - questioning every single sentence and every word of the sentence. Where in the name of Jesus Mary and their wee donkey do you get the time to post such a bucket load of waffle. Your posts are both boring and irritating. If your PM's were only 20% the length of your posts then I feel sorry for OscarBravo and see why he has taken a stand.

You have way too much time on your hands. You are digging a hole for yourself that you wont get out of. Throw the spade away, calm down and sit tight for a while.

r3nu4l

Having been involved in that thread I feel I should comment. From my point of view regardless of the fact that I agreed with Psi's points in the debate, I also agree with what he has said regarding your posting style.

It is, in my view, diversionary and obfuscating. Deliberately clouding the issue with minor unimportant points and refusing to focus on the main thrust of the debate. You tend to wander off on tangents that you have created yourself. I got very tired of trying to debate rationally with you and also sick of the use of UPPERCASE to ENHANCE points and generally FORCE your opinion on others.

I don't know if this is an unintentional thing with you or whether you feel you have to take up every single tiny point regardless of its importance in the overall debate but it induces feelings of apathy in this reader. I found I could not continue on the thread because I felt worn down by it to the extent where I lost interest.

That's just my two cents and I know it won't make a difference to you. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to explain how I saw it as someone else who was poting on that thread. I felt at one point that you were getting very aggressive and in fairness to the politics mods they didn't step in for ages. So I guess that when they did they felt it was justifiable.

seamus

ISAW wrote:

"might" do something against the rules....
this is what i refer to as "thought crime" .... there was no "act" I actually did . I was punished ....
One can't be convicted of a crime one has not yet committed! especially when the "crime" doesn't exist in the charter...

So to sum up; You think that a ban should only be imposed when someone breaks a specific rule. That's not the way it works, and I'm not going to try explain it again.

"because I felt like it and I don't like you anyway "

Who said that?

You are their spokesman then and speak for them?

No, apologies. I should have qualified that with, "I think you'll find". The role of the smods is exactly as I have described, but the admins in the past have stated that they will generally not overrule a moderator - what would be the point in giving the moderators this power if the admins are going to interfere with it?

do you accept my analysis of the appeals process as I outlined it?

Absolutely. I never said your analysis was wrong. I was simply clarifying the bits you were uncertain of.

Having just stated you would not overturn the ban I would not think that of any benefit to restoring my posting ability would you?

Well, in the absence of any evidence or otherwise any support from another user, any claims of ulterior motives are irrelevant. On the other hand, if you do believe that moderators are particularly picking on you, then you/I/we can bring it to an administrator's attention.

As I explained to you before, I endeavour to ensure that a moderator acted in good faith. If on the other hand, a moderator acted in abuse of his/her powers, then I would most definitely have that case heard and do what I can to right that. In such a case, overriding the ban wouldn't be sufficient action to right the wrong. Would you prefer that just your ban was lifted, or that the abusing moderator was removed *and* your ban was lifted, if it took a little longer?

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

When I banned you on March 27, I said: ...

So Oscar Bravo now claims he permanently banned me for "arguing" in the politics forum!

funny how you don't seem to be able to explain what argument is because I suspect if you did you would have to ban all rational logically valid debate and most of the posters to politics!

Not just arguing mind you but arguing in a "heated" way!

This is supposed to be a valid reason for permanently banning someone form politics? I point out that someone is not supporting their case and that they are calling me a liar and this amounts to "heated argument". I contually point out logical flaws in the other persons' positions and insisting they support their position with evidence instead of argument form authority and this is being "heated"?

"heated argument" apparently is the new invented crime of permanent bans from all three politics fora.

Does anyone find something odd about that accusation or the penalty for it?

As for having the ban lifted after the general election: it's not going to happen either before, during or after the election, unless you meet the simple criterion I've set out.

In other words unless I say I wont argue in the politics fora you won't lift the ban?

And apparently according to an Smod none of the admins or other mods will lift it either?

Does anyone find this a bit odd? I mean what is the point of an appeals process if no one ever is going to change any prior decision?

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

Based on the twelve private messages I've received from you since then, your Help Desk thread, your contribution to another thread on this forum, and now this thread, I think you've done an admirable job of making my case for me.

Of course you refer to this but dont actually provide evidence to your handwaving argument. WHERE specifically is this "evidence" that "heated argument" warrents a ban from politics? On what in the charter is it based?

I don't have an issue with you personally

then why post about PM and p[ersonal comments made by me? why not say "if a poster ..." and make a general case? Why use me as an example?

Well the last thing the volunteer politics mod wants is to be wasting time on a never ending stream of pm's with a poster arguing over a desision
We don't tolerate that or obfuscation via pm.
No exceptions are made.

We're only interested in the smooth running of the forum.

You were being discussed on the politics mod forum thread that Gandalf linked to.

The politics mods have came to a decision now.May I be the first to relay it to you.
As far as we are concerned your ban is permanent.

aidan_walsh

I don't see you supporting your claims with links and quotes. I demand evidence, and a big book of it too. In fact, I demand no less than three meters of evidence.

ISAW

seamus wrote:

So to sum up; You think that a ban should only be imposed when someone breaks a specific rule.

Your logic seems to be confused.

I am not making that case about a ban ONLY being covered by the charter. I might well make that case. If you look at the title of this thread you will see I am ASKING whether mods go by the charter or appeal to some higher sense of right and wrong. I can only counter either argument as the mod in question makes it. you have made the "natural law" position. And so I ask form where does this authority folw? What is the source of this thing that informs you of right and wrong? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

That's not the way it works, and I'm not going to try explain it again.

you have made this case in this thread. But other mods have different positions. Even in politics mods are on record saying they go by the charter.

Who said that?

Note the quotes? They are used to indicate an analogy. It is called arguemtn by analogy. For example what is the difference between "we will give him a fair trial and then hang him" and assumption of guilrt or saying because "I felt like it and I don't like you anyway" and not having any rule to point to which I broke?

No, apologies. I should have qualified that with, "I think you'll find". The role of the smods is exactly as I have described, but the admins in the past have stated that they will generally not overrule a moderator - what would be the point in giving the moderators this power if the admins are going to interfere with it?

Well it is called "judicial process" or "appeal to a higher court" in normal parlance. It is not usual but it is not uncommon for appeal courts to reverse decisions. Otherwise why have an appeal process in the first place?

Absolutely. I never said your analysis was wrong. I was simply clarifying the bits you were uncertain of.

Well then that is a contradiction! Since you seem not to understand than an appeal process is to facilitate decisions being reversed! But then you say you accept my outline of what the appeal process is!

Would you prefer that just your ban was lifted, or that the abusing moderator was removed *and* your ban was lifted, if it took a little longer?

I would prefer I wasnt banned in the first place. as for the moderator who banned me I don't know but I do not believe he has any personal communication form others about me since he seemed to tell me so. I believe him. I don't think he was "put up to it" but I don't know. I believe others have certainly been discussing me privately and maybe he was too but he said he wasn't.

but my point is I don't believe the ban to be fair or valid. If I abused anyone or broke any rule I would apologise for doing so. It seems Oscar Bravo thinks the WAY I argue is unacceptable but he can't tell me either why it is unacceptable or outline what specifically he finds wrong about the way I argue.

How can he make up vague unlisted rules about the way people argue and then not apply the same rules to others?

And how can it also be claimed that the ban is for the way I argued in this particular thread and ban me in spite of me saying before the ban I had no intention of posting that thread?

you see I am being accused (I know not of what ) and sentenced (apparently permanently but that to is uncertain) and have been tried and convicted. But the process by which you do this is also on trial here now!

I don't have anything personal against Oscar Bravo or you but I do question

- How mods can impose bans based on whim and what they think might happen?
- how there is a claim to have a appeal process but the appeal judge says in advance that he will never reverse a decision?

ISAW

aidan_walsh wrote:

I don't see you supporting your claims with links and quotes. I demand evidence, and a big book of it too. In fact, I demand no less than three meters of evidence.

which calims in particular do you want me to support?

List them and i will list supporting evidence

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

So Oscar Bravo now claims he permanently banned me for "arguing" in the politics forum!

I'm not interested in getting into one of your protracted more-heat-than-light debates, but I will point out the sheer irony of your constant whining about fairness, when in this line alone you blatantly misrepresent what I've clearly stated. I'm not even going to address the rest of your posts, because it's just more of the same, ad nauseam.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

Well the last thing the volunteer politics mod wants is to be wasting time on a never ending stream of pm's with a poster arguing over a desision
We don't tolerate that or obfuscation via pm.
No exceptions are made.

We're only interested in the smooth running of the forum.

You were being discussed on the politics mod forum thread that Gandalf linked to.

The politics mods have came to a decision now.May I be the first to relay it to you.
As far as we are concerned your ban is permanent.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you were discussing me. and that you were doing so in advance of Oscar Bravos decision to ban me.

Ironically Tristame, you are the one who claims to "go by the charter"

So what according to the charter are you banning me permanently for?

And what avenue is there to appeal of this ban?

What obfuscation am I accused of?

What "nevr ending stream of PM" am I accused of? Is it with Oscar Bravo?

I posted a long position necessitating two posts to cover each reply. I think it came to about nine lengthy replies i.e. FOUR single debates.

I then didnt post for three weeks and posted a five line or so post asking to be unbanned.

Above are numerous suggestions to an appeal process and to mods who will listen to complaints. Dont forget this all happened when I asked Oscar Bravo about other people personally attacking me?

But now you give the semblance that you interfere with other judges cases and that you band together and discuss cases behind closed doors and come out with a united opinion protecting your "system" based on personal whim which merely panders to some "charter" which you follow when it suits you and dont claim to follow when it does not.

Again I am not surprises that with a general election coming up you chose njow to ban me from politics fora. I challenge claims made by many posters in many fora. Mostly when self important people claim thier view is correct I ask "where is your evidence".

that balance will now be missing for you politics fora but I am sure you may rest easy in the knowledge you will brook no "heated debate" in the politics fora.

Seeing as you Tristame are so keen on "following the charter"
I eagerly await your adding of "heated debate" to the list of things not allowed in the politics fora. I wonder how you will get around actually phrasing it so you can keep in the people you want to and keep the likes of me out?

By the way in case you dont know ther is no such thing as a retroactive penal law. You cant add it and then ban me for using it in the past! Well you can but doing that isn't logically valid either.

As to you doing things voluntary. I don't see the validity of that point either. I admire the contribution of voluntary workers but, I am sure you are aware one can also have volunteer commisars?

seamus

ISAW wrote:

- how there is a claim to have a appeal process but the appeal judge says in advance that he will never reverse a decision?

The appeal process will involve the input of the moderator in question if necessary, thus facilitating the resolution of the dispute. That is, an Smod will never forcibly reverse the decision of a moderator, but will advise the moderator if they think the actions were harsh or otherwise not valid. They may also act on the banned poster's behalf and ask that the moderator reverse the ban. You seem to be confusing this whole thing as if you were in a real world judicial process. You're not.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not interested in getting into one of your protracted more-heat-than-light debates,

SAys you who raised the accusation of "heated argument"?

but I will point out the sheer irony of your constant whining about fairness, when in this line alone you blatantly misrepresent what I've clearly stated.

"heated argument" your words not mine. clearly stated!

I'm not even going to address the rest of your posts, because it's just more of the same, ad nauseam.

i.e. you can't support your position. No wonder since there is no "heated debate" clause int he charter. Nor is there any "he might get more personal tomorrow" clause.

don't forget I am the one who has been juged and banned by you (and approved by your other mods after getting together to discuss me without me being privvy to any of it). Enen after your natter session I STILL don't know


- what am I accused of doing wrong?
-why does it warrant a permanent ban?