Clare Gunner banned

johngalway

seamus wrote:

It was CG who made the leap to, "You are calling me crazy". Terry in no way implied or otherwise made a statement as to CG's mental state - he only gave his opinion on what he though CG's personal stance was.

I don't know how to cross post quote, but here is what Terry said to CG;

"You however, live in some place where you seem to believe everyone is out to get you. You should not be allowed to own a gun. "

To me, just as a normal joe soap, that says "You're paranoid mate, you're not mentally stable enough to own a firearm."

Fine, it may be my interpretation of it but I agree with the comments here that the mod should have stopped the whole thing before it got to that point.

I do appreciate your reccomendation on lifting the ban though Seamus, seems a bit of sense is starting to prevail here

johngalway

Fysh wrote:

It's hilarious how in this thread a number of people are defending Clare Gunner by saying that the threat of legal action was made "in the heat of the moment" but don't seem willing to accept the exact same argument in the defence of Terry's comments.

It's not actually. Most people, including myself, will accept both sides did wrong. Yet CG gets a ban and Terry get's off scot free as far as we know. The only reason, I believe, anyone is saying Terry should get a punishment is because of the weight of punishment against CG, or what is seen as the unfair weight of punishment. If CG had gotten a warning, and the personal abuse one doesn't count in my book as Terry was dishing it out pretty thick, or a week cooling off period then Terry would be a non issue.

Fysh

johngalway wrote:

It's not actually. Most people, including myself, will accept both sides did wrong. Yet CG gets a ban and Terry get's off scot free as far as we know.

Firstly, I'm not saying that the current situation is necessarily right, I'm just saying that I understand the reasoning behind it.

Terry made comments that were borderline offensive and, yes, should probably have received a warning of some form for it. However, he didnt make a threat of legal action against boards (whether jokingly or otherwise) and thus did not fall foul of a standing policy on the site. Clare Gunner did fall foul of this policy and thus got banned. The "perceived unfair weight of punishment" is in fact due to there being two different infractions occuring, and is no more unfair than the difference between the penalties for indecent exposure and inflicting bodily harm. Different offences, therefore different penalties.

As for Terry's comments, I certainly wouldn't say that the phrasing was correct but I would agree that Clare Gunner's posts gave the impression of someone in a paranoid frame of mind, at least regarding the reasons for owning a gun. This may well not be an accurate description of Clare Gunner, but this is the nature of communicating via the interweb.

Vegeta

Fysh wrote:

It's hilarious how in this thread a number of people are defending Clare Gunner by saying that the threat of legal action was made "in the heat of the moment" but don't seem willing to accept the exact same argument in the defence of Terry's comments.

That's not my defence at all actually (heat of the moment). I just think CG phrased what he meant very poorly.

As regards the statement of "You're living in a dream world/lalaland/whatever"...I would agree it's an offensive phrasing, at the least, but it's essentially a statement that Terry doesn't believe the reasons Clare Gunner gave for his stated position in the thread in question are valid. This is, presumably, Terry's opinion and while it's poorly phrased, he's still entitled to it. Must admit I'm glad it's not my call though.

but I think that is what CG was getting at (in a porrly phrased/worded way). Nobodies "opinion" can be hidden behind here, boards.ie itself is held accountable. CG has had stuff deleted several times from the shooting forum (examples above) because he himself is the only one with proof of his "opinion" (what he says is true but as he cant show proof on the forum the mods choose the side of caution) then a mod uses openly offensive language against him but its ok because its an arguement and its his "opinion"

I think he was pointing out that boards has had trouble with this in the past so stop using that type of language.

That's my take on it. I have nothing at all against Terry but I would expect to be banned/post deleted/warned for an outburst like his. It was an arguement and sometimes they turn sour.

CG will be un-banned or he wont, it will be a loss if he remains banned though, even if it is for his often differing stance on things.

copacetic

seamus wrote:

On boards.ie, we've traditionally shyed away from baiting, but it's by no means banned or "wrong".

I don't think that is true at all, people get banned for this all the time, it's called trolling..

On AH that kid got banned for supporting paedophilia - he did not call anyone there a paedophile, he just baited the other users, and was perm banned for it (and rightly so) but to say that baiting is supported is incorrect,

seamus

johngalway wrote:

It's not actually. Most people, including myself, will accept both sides did wrong. Yet CG gets a ban and Terry get's off scot free as far as we know. The only reason, I believe, anyone is saying Terry should get a punishment is because of the weight of punishment against CG, or what is seen as the unfair weight of punishment. If CG had gotten a warning, and the personal abuse one doesn't count in my book as Terry was dishing it out pretty thick, or a week cooling off period then Terry would be a non issue.

I was going to write this myself, but Fysh put it the best way:

The "perceived unfair weight of punishment" is in fact due to there being two different infractions occuring, and is no more unfair than the difference between the penalties for indecent exposure and inflicting bodily harm. Different offences, therefore different penalties.

The heated exchange between Terry and CG is completely unrelated to CG's siteban.

CG didn't get banned for the heated exchange. In fact, Terry specifically let it off because he conceded his wrongdoing.

CG got banned for threatening legal action. Terry had no action taken against him because he had no part in said threat.

I don't think that is true at all, people get banned for this all the time, it's called trolling..

People generally don't get banned for trolling, contrary to popular belief. Occasionally, you'll get someone who joins/registers purely to troll, in which case they will get banned because they're a waste of posting space. Regular members though who engage in a spot of trolling, will generally not get banned for it. They may get warned for it, but even then it's rare enough because regular members tend not to troll.

It's a matter of a poster's worth. If they have no interest in engaging in discussion, but instead spend their time starting inflammatory threads, or making pointless, trolling comments, then removing them from a forum serves the community.

Giblet

Deleted User wrote:

On AH that kid got banned for supporting paedophilia - he did not call anyone there a paedophile, he just baited the other users, and was perm banned for it (and rightly so) but to say that baiting is supported is incorrect,

He was also a returning perma-banned user.

Didn't know that.

Terry

You have all read the entire thread, right?
Not just my posts.

That's all I will say on the matter for the time being.

Boston

seamus wrote:

Having reviewed the thread in question, I would recommend lifting the ban in a day or two (provided that CG understands why it was imposed in the first place).

Why? This is a person threatening Boards.ie what benifit do they serve which out weights the risk?

Giblet

I dunno, depends really. I know I looked first before deciding to ban.

seamus

Boston wrote:

Why? This is a person threatening Boards.ie what benifit do they serve which out weights the risk?

Clearly a number of posters consider his submissions of the Shooting forum to be good input.
Assuming that he isn't actually serious about any legal action - which is why it's an admin's call to decide this - then I see no reason to permanently ban him.

copacetic

Terry wrote:

You have all read the entire thread, right?
Not just my posts.

That's all I will say on the matter for the time being.

terry, yours are the only posts I ever read on any thread...

Boston

seamus wrote:

Clearly a number of posters consider his submissions of the Shooting forum to be good input.
Assuming that he isn't actually serious about any legal action - which is why it's an admin's call to decide this - then I see no reason to permanently ban him.

Ok and what about the 100,000 odd other users.

seamus

What about them? Do you want to take a vote from every one of them?

CG barely posts outside of Shooting. If he poses no actual legal threat, then what cause is served by leaving him banned?

Vegeta

Boston wrote:

Why? This is a person threatening Boards.ie what benifit do they serve which out weights the risk?

What if CG wasn't threatening legal action but pointing out that language like Terry's might get the site in trouble in the future?

Fysh

Vegeta wrote:

What if CG wasn't threatening legal action but pointing out that language like Terry's might get the site in trouble in the future?

Then he should have used the "Report post" option or brought it up either via PMing one of the mods or raising a ticket in Feedback. If this was in fact his intention with that particular post, then he demonstrated spectacularly poor judgement (one which renders any other errors of judgement in the thread trivial in comparison, imo).

Boston

seamus wrote:

What about them? Do you want to take a vote from every one of them?

CG barely posts outside of Shooting. If he poses no actual legal threat, then what cause is served by leaving him banned?

By his own words he does. Once someone demostrates that they are a threat to all of boards, why take a chance on them?

Talliesin

And why facilitate it.

Anyone who honestly believes they have been wronged by boards in a way which was illegal has a right to engage in legal action against them, or to use the possibility of such action to weight an attempt to seek resolution outside of the courts. It's not necessarily a good idea, but they have that right.

But why on earth should boards publish their legal threats for them?

It's both rude and stupid. Whenever I've had cause to make legal threats I got my lawyer to deal with the communications - I didn't ask the people I was threatening to do it for me.

DeVore

If CG can confirm that he is not coming to Boards with the intention of suing us, finding something to sue us over nor creating something we could be sued over then I would be content enough to unban him and leave a month ban on AH in place.

DeV.

Trojan911

You stated in an earlier post started by JohnGalway in the Help Desk section that "We don't require that moderators be sober while on boards. They're volunteers, not employees". I'm surprised at this, I would have thought standards would have been higher.

In my opinion & experience, persons under the influence of alcohol are not capable of making a fair and reasonable judgement & in the case of Moderating a Forum even more reason to remain in a state of sobriety.

You also stated "Terry could have been paralytic, but that's no reason to prevent him posting on boards". There is every reason, especially if he is Moderator mode. One drunken slip and a law suit entails is every reason to remain sober whilst "Volunteering".

Maybe, this rule should be included in the rules for Moderators so we know in the future all Moderators, chosen by Boards.ie, who are on duty and sober and can fulfil their role in a reasonable & fair way.

TJ911...

seamus

Trojan911 wrote:

I'm surprised at this, I would have thought standards would have been higher.

Standards for what? My view on it will always be that moderators are normal posters first and foremost, and then moderators/caretakers second. Even on their own forums. If everyone else is perfectly entitled to post while drunk, then why not moderators too?

In my opinion & experience, persons under the influence of alcohol are not capable of making a fair and reasonable judgement & in the case of Moderating a Forum even more reason to remain in a state of sobriety.

It's not heart surgery. It's moderating an internet forum.

There is every reason, especially if he is Moderator mode. One drunken slip and a law suit entails is every reason to remain sober whilst "Volunteering".

I would half agree, except that Terry wasn't in "moderator mode". He was in moderator mode (and sober) when he returned and apologised. He posted on-topic in a thread. His sobriety is pretty irrelevant. If he had taken some sort of action and gone on a banning spree, this would be a very different discussion. But even at that, if someone does go and apply a ban while drunk, again it's not heart surgery. It can be undone, no harm done.

Maybe, this rule should be included in the rules for Moderators so we know in the future all Moderators, chosen by Boards.ie, who are on duty and sober and can fulfil their role in a reasonable & fair way.

There's no real definition of "on duty" or "off duty" though. If the moderator is online, and sees something that he can & should take action against, then it's asked that he takes that action. If he couldn't be arsed, then it's asked that he hands the reigns to someone else. You can't ask then that they avoid boards.ie if they've drink on board.

Dr Strange

DeVore wrote:

If CG can confirm that he is not coming to Boards with the intention of suing us, finding something to sue us over nor creating something we could be sued over then I would be content enough to unban him and leave a month ban on AH in place.

DeV.

I sent CG an Email with your reply, DeVore. Hopefully, he will be in contact soon.

Giblet

Hey, if I couldn't post on boards pissed, there wouldn't be many times I COULD post on boards.

6th

Giblet wrote:

Hey, if I couldn't post on boards pissed, there wouldn't be many times I COULD post on boards.

Amen!

Trojan911

First off, thank you for the prompt reply.

seamus wrote:

Standards for what? My view on it will always be that moderators are normal posters first and foremost, and then moderators/caretakers second.

Exactly my point, caretakers & caretakers hold a point of responsibility how can they do this under the influence of alcohol?

seamus wrote:

Even on their own forums. If everyone else is perfectly entitled to post while drunk, then why not moderators too?

Again, the responsibility aspect comes into it. You cannot have a Moderator drunk and be expected to act in a responsible & fair manner. Everyone else does not have the “Caretaker” role.

seamus wrote:

It's not heart surgery.

Thank god for that. I don't fancy a sozzled Dr operating on me same as I don't fancy a sozzled Mod dishing out uncalled for remarks .....

seamus wrote:

I would half agree, except that Terry wasn't in "moderator mode".

How do we know that? He was in conversation in a thread with Moderator underlined.

As you state above it's not heart surgery it's moderating an internet forum, you make it sound relaxed and trivial so I was just curious as to why nearly every one jumped up with their "Ooohs & Ahhh's and their "he's overstept the mark" when a poster made a comment which may have been deemed a threat of legal action by some when provoked by a Moderator, irrespective of whether he was in Mod Mode or not but still held the title of Moderator & who also admitted he was drunk at the time.. A comment I would have taken offence to had it been directed at me, the difference being, I would have reported the comment through the correct channel. It, in my opinion, put a slur on the posters character of an unstable mind. I apportion blame on both sides however, more on the Moderator. Thanks again for your response. These are just my curious thoughts.

TJ911...

Manic Moran

Terry wrote:

You have all read the entire thread, right?
Not just my posts.

That's all I will say on the matter for the time being.

OK. I'll give you the bait to say more, then.

After reviewing the thread in its entirity again, I note that whilst the majority of posters who contributed anything of substance (i.e. more than a one-liner) were content to argue principle and logic, two people devolved away from that and started to get into personal territory. CG was one. The other was yourself. Granted, we're talking AH here, not the L&H intervarsity debate, but still some level of maturity should, IMO, be retained. Thus, while the thread should be taken in its entirity, particular attention should be paid to both your posts and CG's.

Now, taking this to Seamus's comment:

The heated exchange between Terry and CG is completely unrelated to CG's siteban

I don't believe it was all that unrelated. See below.

CG got banned for threatening legal action.

That was no more a threat of legal action than my mother saying "I'll kill him" when she found out I had accidently run over her rose-bed with the lawnmower was a death threat. It was pretty obviously an emotional response on a hot-button issue. People may not necessarily agree with the principle, but for some of us, self defense is as fundamental a principle as the right to vote. Indeed, it pre-dates it. Terry had one actual argument of note, that of statistically being highly unlikely to ever be in a position requiring a firearm and barring a repeating of that position as if it were totally self-evident, instead commenced discrediting the arguer, not the argument. You may as well say "You should have no right to vote for the Communist Party because their policies are idiotic and anyone who supports them is an idiot" and expect not to get a heated response.

Yes, CG is guilty of losing his cool and I'm disappointed with him. Not the sort of image most firearms owners like other firearms owners to portray. Yes, he crossed over a line. But much as a frustrated passenger at an airport security line saying "What am I going to do, hijack an airplane with this nail file?" is going to get him brought aside for a little extra attention, it doesn't mean he's going to be barred from getting on an airplane.

Now, please note: I am not advocating that any actions should be taken against Terry: Again, this is After Hours, here, and as others note, the offenses by the two are slightly different. I just think that the ClareGunner issue should be taken in this context. He's had a slap on the wrist. Persuming he has been officially notified as to the reason of his ban, I hope he has learned his lesson about making passing jokes about legal action, just as one shouldn't make passing jokes about bombs on an airplane. With that, I, too, respectfully submit that his ban be lifted.

NTM

Fysh

Trojan911 wrote:

Exactly my point, caretakers & caretakers hold a point of responsibility how can they do this under the influence of alcohol?

It's kind of hard to really explain this to someone who hasn't either seen it in action or done it themselves (and I don't mean that dismissively, incidentally) but being a mod is mostly about cleaning up the mess in your given forum. It's dependent on the forum, but for a lot of fora it's more often cleaning up spam or moving threads to a more suitable location than it is keeping things on track. So the comparison is more like a caretaker picking up a broom drunk. Not a great idea, but hardly likely to lead to a civil war.

Plus, and this probably can't be reiterated enough, we're talking about volunteers putting in their free time on a privately owned website wherein you do not have freedom of speech. A mod, drunk or otherwise, did something out of order? Bring it up with the mod or, if necessary, in Feedback.

Trojan911 wrote:

Again, the responsibility aspect comes into it. You cannot have a Moderator drunk and be expected to act in a responsible & fair manner. Everyone else does not have the “Caretaker” role.

Well, I'd argue it more as "you can't guarantee a mod will be responsible & fair if they're drunk", but then again, you have no rights on boards.ie other than those given to you by the admins. Which are subject to the whims and caprices of the admins. I don't mean to belittle your argument here, but it would carry more weight if boards.ie and its administrator owed you anything. They don't.

Trojan911 wrote:

Thank god for that. I don't fancy a sozzled Dr operating on me same as I don't fancy a sozzled Mod dishing out uncalled for remarks .....

Nobody's making you post here though. And, if drunken posting is allowed for users, it should be allowed for moderators. Drunken moderation will probably end up being questioned, but you seem to be suggesting the exact opposite of the principle of boards - that moderators can still contribute as users. Speaking as a mod (but only for myself, I should add), I'd say get lost. Me cleaning up the mess that accrues in a given corner of boards should not remove my right, should I choose to exercise it, of posting in the same exact way as any other poster on boards. So long as due care is taken to point out when something is being said as moderator, I don't see any benefit of asking mods to be measured up to higher standards.

Trojan911 wrote:

How do we know that? He was in conversation in a thread with Moderator underlined.

This is a fair point and something that has been hotly discussed in other threads. I don't know if a solution is available in vbulletin but it would be nice if the option existed to add or remove the moderator tag to given posts, to differentiate between posts as a user and posts as a moderator.

Trojan911 wrote:

As you state above it's not heart surgery it's moderating an internet forum, I was just curious as to why nearly every one jumped up with their "Ooohs & Ahhh's and their "he's overstept the mark" when a poster made a comment which may have been deemed a threat of legal action by some when provoked by a Moderator, irrespective of whether he was in Mod Mode or not but still held the title of Moderator & who also admitted he was drunk at the time.. Thanks again for your response. These are just my curious thoughts.
TJ911...

I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass if it's provoked or not, a threat of legal action was made when it's a known rule on boards.ie that threatening legal action = ban. The provocation was ill-advised but frankly, that's not the point. It may be resolved by Clare Gunner talking to admins about this, but the admins are wary of legal issues coming up, so bringing up the existing lawsuit and then threatening to add to it was at best poorly-thought-through and at worst downright stupid. If Terry being a mod contributed to Clare Gunner's thinking behind threatening legal action then it was an even dumber move (in that Terry would just have more incentive to enforce or request the enforcement of the "legal threat = ban" rule, as someone who contributes significantly to boards.ie and thus has some form of personal stake in its continued existence), and if it didn't then Terry being a mod is irrelevant.

You'll note that at no point have I said Terry was right to post the way he did in that thread, but while his phrasing was off I don't think he was wrong to suggest that Clare Gunner's stated position of requiring a gun in order to protect himself was not one that the average man could directly relate to and identify with. And, as stated in my previous posts on this, whatever else happened in thread, Clare Gunner broke an important rule and got smacked for it.

Terry

Manic Moran wrote:

With that, I, too, respectfully submit that his ban be lifted.

It has been lifted. It's up to him now. See above for details.

Trojan911, I have no idea what you are trying to achieve here.
All moderating on this board is done on a completely voluntary basis.
If we were paid, then you would probably have an arguement regarding drinking.
That particular night, I wasn't doing any moderating. I was just being a normal user.
Had something of interest arisen (spam and the like), then I would have dealt with it if none of the other mods were available, but nothing did.

Have a look at post #127. Clare gunner suggests I need thorazine, which is an anti-psychotic. He may have been right, but that's not the point here.
The point is that I didn't respond by freaking out and threatening legal action. I just laughed it off.
It's an internet forum. People are going to take the piss.

I went a bit overboard when I was drunk. I apologised. Clare gunner chose not to accept my apology. That's fair enough. I shouldn't be excused just because I apologised. He, in my opinion, just took things a little too seriously.