Banned from Politics!

Villain

LOL I don't think my banning is victory for anyone and I certainly don't think it will help discussion on the topic in the Politics forum, I'm sure if I wasn't banned and I was allowed post my opinion based on tribunal transcripts and statements there would be more than 5 replies in that thread.

The fact is I was the only one in the politics thread that bothered to reason my opinion out and provide links to back up my opinion.

The fact remains no mod has sent me a PM of why I was banned or pointed out what rules I have broken.

nesf

irish1 wrote:

The fact remains no mod has sent me a PM of why I was banned or pointed out what rules I have broken.

They're not rules, they're guidelines. I imagine you'll get a PM when they've decided the duration or something, but since it was stated publicly I don't see the issue really. You're not entitled to a PM, they're more of a courtesy. Personally I generally send one but it's up to the individual mod's discretion.

Hobart

irish1 wrote:

I'm guessing that disucssion is still ongoing as no admin has commented yet either that or they think the issue will just go away and they won't have to comment.

I don't know if the discussion has ended tbh. I'm pretty much finished with it. It descended into a bit of a farce, but I said my bit.

As for the admins, I dunno tbh. It seems the politics mods have their reasons, I doubt they or the admins are for turning.

Villain

The mods will do what they want but as I have said the politics thread on the one of the most interesting political stories of the past 10 years has 6 replies excluding the mod's post and some of them are in relation to the rules of the thread.

The mods have wanted to restrict posters on this topic and have banned me who was the one user who actually read the transcripts and linked to them when expressing an opinion the result is there is next to no discussion on the actual topic, this thread has got more attention so the mods have got what they wanted i.e. little or no discussion of Bertie Ahern's finances and the biggest politics story in years. Which is a poor reflection on Boards.ie as a discussion forum imo.

They would rather talk about banning me than discuss the actual topic.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

The fact remains no mod has sent me a PM of why I was banned or pointed out what rules I have broken.

We don't have to.
We are not obliged to.
You will not be getting one.
Theres 3 other facts that remain.

Villain

So have you decided if the ban is for a month or more?

Time Magazine

Rock Climber wrote:

We don't have to.
We are not obliged to.
You will not be getting one.
Theres 3 other facts that remain.

Aren't the first two the same thing?



*Legs it*

faceman

all these pages of posts n yizzer all forgettin one thing...

....bertie is a liar!!!


/runs and hides!

Hobart

faceman wrote:

all these pages of posts n yizzer all forgettin one thing...

....bertie is a liar!!!


/runs and hides!

Settle now faceman, you would not want to be "annoying" anybody now, would you? Apparently you can get banned from anywhere!!

Fysh

Hobart wrote:

Settle now faceman, you would not want to be "annoying" anybody now, would you? Apparently you can get banned from anywhere!!

Yeah, because one joking comment on Feedback is clearly analogous to a history of borderline harrassment and refusing to accept a point blank statement of the rules...

Nevyn

If metalfingers can be a site banned for breaching the rules again and again and for harassing mods ...........

The Muppet

hullaball&#250 wrote:

It is only safe to say that he is accused of lying by the tribunal. In fact, on a strict interpretation, even that could be defamatory. You'd just have a straight-forward defence.

That's what I said. "If joe bloggs is accused of lying in the tribunal it is safe to say so." ie it is safe to say he was accused of lying. Technically it could still be defamatory but there would be little or no chance of being prosecuted for it.


@Boston. you're slipping, you need to hone up those skills.

Villain

I never got a PM saying how long my ban was for, any chance a mod or admin can let me know I'd send a PM to the mods only they would probably give me another ban for that!

axer

I also agree that this ban seems fishy.

I have been involved in a number of discussions in the politics forum in the past where there have been constant unfounded aligations against SF etc. but there was never a problem with that. In the end I rarely got involved in such discussions involving SF and north as I felt that some of moderators of the politics forum have strong anti-SF feelings which is clear in their moderation - take posts like this for example which there is no problem with. I have never seen any action taken against posters for posting that sinn fein is funded by a terrorist organisation or that leaders of sinn fein have been able to buy property etc. from the proceeds of crimminality or terrorism.

I strongly agree with this:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In the politics forum, you can accuse politicians of being involved in murder & criminality without any evidence other than it is your opinion. Try calling someone a liar though and your history!

I also fail to see the reasoning behind irish1's ban.

meglome

I'm not taking sides here as I haven't read all the posts. But my own opinion is that the moderation in the politics forum is heavy handed. I'm currently 'enjoying' a one month ban from the politics forum for very little indeed. Politics will always be contentious but the number of posts that get deleted seems to me to be over the top.

I've been on boards.ie for 7 years and the only place I've been banned from is Politics. I've only ever had a couple of posts even edited or deleted in all that time. Anyway here's the link my own bitching in Helpdesk http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055160718

meglome

axer wrote: »

I also agree that this ban seems fishy.

I have been involved in a number of discussions in the politics forum in the past where there have been constant unfounded aligations against SF etc. but there was never a problem with that. In the end I rarely got involved in such discussions involving SF and north as I felt that some of moderators of the politics forum have strong anti-SF feelings which is clear in their moderation - take posts like this for example which there is no problem with. I have never seen any action taken against posters for posting that sinn fein is funded by a terrorist organisation or that leaders of sinn fein have been able to buy property etc. from the proceeds of crimminality or terrorism.

I strongly agree with this:


I also fail to see the reasoning behind irish1's ban.

I'm no SF Supporter but it's a very good point.

Villain

Well I started a helpdesk thread to get some answers and Seamus was very helpful he said the ban was Permanent, I asked why had I been banned and he said:

It would appear that the ban is for resuming a type of behaviour for which you had been permanently banned in the past, but got readmitted on the understanding that this behaviour would stop.

It did stop, but later resumed, so you got banned.

The behaviour in question is obsessively and single-mindedly questioning rules or decisions even when the final call has been made.

It's not like any ban I've seen before, but the reasoning is sound.

To which I replied:

Well the thing is that's not actually correct, I was banned before for sending mods PM's arguing a point. On this case I was having a discussion with mods within the Rules thread in politics and when I couldn't get an answer to a very fair question I said I would it take it to the feedback thread and I was encouraged to do so by the mods.

Now when I was posting in the feedback thread Two Mods, Tristrame and OscarBravo were replying to me and never at any stage did they suggest my behaviour was out of order or warn me. Then another mod who wasn't involved in the discussion at all just comes in bans me without giving any reason.

I only sent one PM and that was after I was banned so I couldn't have been banned for a repeat of the past. The ban is unjust and I think mainly it permanent is shocking

TBH I think the whole thing here is simple if you are willing to accept that different parties and different Politicians get treated differently here and if you are willing to avoid discussion and not ask why you will be allowed post in Politics, if however you happen to have some level of intelligence and can see how the forum is been biased and ask why you will get some mods who will talk around the question long enough to make it look like you are just trying to cause trouble and then they will invite another mod in to make the ban and then when asked to defend it just ignore it, silence can be deafening sometimes.

I thought Boards was there was for free speech and opinion when I joined 5 years ago but sadly that isn't true in the Politics forum, the mods are slowly but surely trying to kill any type of decent discussion.

PS. When the tribunal reports back on Bertie in a few years people will see that what I posted about was correct, why? becuase what I posted was based on facts discovered by the tribunal, plain and simple facts, where as people who have been allowed Say Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council without any bans were basing their opinion on rumours.

Nevyn

you dont' get it yet do you ?

You are the argumentative git on the soccer pitch that keeps arguing with the ref about every call and takes up time and daylight stopping play.

Then after the match you hassle the ref and anyone who will listen when he is trying to get to his car and you follow him to the pub still pissing and whining and moaning.

If you can't play with others and keep causing disruption then you are not allowed play.

and GGAAHH I HATE you Kharn as that was a fecking soccer analogy.

copacetic

I think he does get it, the point is that it appears particularly unfair and arbitrary and it does seem that it is people holding certain opinions that are banned. There is a distinct lack of independent oversight on the politics forum imo and not even the pretence of fairness and impartial moderation. Why people don't just go other places for politics discussion like the rest of us I don't know, but lets not pretend that the politics forum is run fairly.

To use your analogy above the mods are the guy who owns the ball and they won't let you play if you aren't their type of person.

Nevyn

Nope the mods are the refs and the admins are the pitch owners.

We are all entitled to have opinions but it is the argumentative, badgering and belligerent attitude of the poster that got him banned.

copacetic

in that case they shouldn't be allowed the power to permanently ban a user from their forum, just like a ref can't. the admins (more like the governing body) would have to do that to ensure there is impartiality.

Dirk Gently

What way does the off side rule work.

Is the benifit of the doubt given to the attacker?

copacetic

clown bag wrote: »

What way does the off side rule work.

Is the benifit of the doubt given to the attacker?

it is supposed to be, but dodgy linesman usually don't give them the advantage.

Nevyn

copacetic wrote: »

in that case they shouldn't be allowed the power to permanently ban a user from their forum, just like a ref can't. the admins (more like the governing body) would have to do that to ensure there is impartiality.

They have invoked a perm ban and the matter has been brought to the admins notice in this thread. If the admins find it unfair they can see about over turning the matter, do you really think none of them has read this thread ?

I just wasted 20 minutes of my life.

Supercell

Deleted User wrote: »

I just wasted 20 minutes of my life.

You're not getting them back....i'll take those 20 mins
Seriously, surely this fight the powah tread has run its course by now?

copacetic

Thaedydal wrote: »

They have invoked a perm ban and the matter has been brought to the admins notice in this thread. If the admins find it unfair they can see about over turning the matter, do you really think none of them has read this thread ?

I'm sure they have. I just think we have it backwards, for something like this I think the mods should have to appeal to the admins or sMods for impartial rulings on permanent or long term bans.

Boston

copacetic wrote: »

I'm sure they have. I just think we have it backwards, for something like this I think the mods should have to appeal to the admins or sMods for impartial rulings on permanent or long term bans.

You're not the brightest are you? If mods had to pass up every perm ban to a higher power, boards would stop. In fact its totally not the place of Smods to second guess the decisions taken by a forum mod, thats not how the structure works here, used thing you would know that by now.

copacetic

Boston wrote: »

You're not the brightest are you? If mods had to pass up every perm ban to a higher power, boards would stop. In fact its totally not the place of Smods to second guess the decisions taken by a forum mod, thats not how the structure works here, used thing you would know that by now.

I'm the north star compared to you Boston. Boards wouldn't stop, it'd be fine, people could still be banned but permanent bans would have to be approved. Imo unless someone is being sitebanned they shouldn't be permabanned from any forum. Only Smods or Admins can siteban someone so there ya go, easy.

You seem to be a bit mixed up, I know how the structure currently works. This whole thread is about how flawed it is. My opinion is that the structure is not ideal in the cases where forum mods ban people who they are arguing with over issues on thread. At the very least it gives the appearance of unfairness and the banning of certain points of view rather than actions.

Boston

How many permanent bans are there on boards from forums each week. Answer that question, and maybe I won't just think you're talking out your rare.