My Ridiculous Banning From Poker Forum

OllieMac

Kashmachine, I have to agree completely with you. I was banned from the "Planning Permission" forum for explaining my opinion, and because I didnt agree with everyone in the forum and made a tongue in cheek joke I was banned by someone who has a chip on their shoulder. I think people with 1,000s of posts think that because not everyone agrees with their opinions that they can just throw their weight around. Also, I dont think alot of people have heard of A SENSE OF HUMOUR. I may only have a few posts, but give us a chance!

Gandalf23

Ste05 wrote: »

had the PM been more cordial and apologetic I would have lifted the ban sooner ...

tbh wrote: »

that's why the mod said he would have lifted the ban if the OP had sent him a civil post. You give a little, you get a little. It's how the world works.

Maybe the ban would have been lifted more quickly if the OP had doffed his cap and touched his forelock too? Perhaps referred to the mod as "My Lord" or "Most Gracious One"?

OllieMac

Is that a joke or a hint of sarcasm I see Gandalf? Careful you may get banned permanently!!

tbh

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Maybe the ban would have been lifted more quickly if the OP had doffed his cap and touched his forelock too? Perhaps referred to the mod as "My Lord" or "Most Gracious One"?

:rolleyes:

yes, that's a natural progression to what I was saying.


tell you what. Stroll into your local and call the barman a twat. Then ask him for a pint.

Gandalf23

tbh wrote: »

:rolleyes:

yes, that's a natural progression to what I was saying.


tell you what. Stroll into your local and call the barman a twat. Then ask him for a pint.

And thats the natural progression to what I was saying.

The OP didnt call anyone a twat.

What kind of person are you that you'd accept being barred from your local for something like the OP did, and then be happy to crawl back to that particular barman being "cordial and apologetic"?

Fysh

In the interests of avoiding this thread's degeneration into "Yes it is/no it isn't!" level "debate", I'd like to offer the following:

1) This ban, on the face of it, appears to be unduly harsh when seen in the context of general (ie non-AH/PI) standards of moderation.

2) Ste05 has explained why he was heavy-handed in his response to a post that, without the context now available in this thread, appeared to him to be a pointless troll who had no worthwhile contribution to make.

3) Following on from 2), I can totally understand Ste05's position that the OP's conduct and tone in subsequent PMs did not suggest someone who had posted with good intentions but poor judgement. Just on general principles I would already say that someone who demands a phone call to explain why they've been banned for what was almost textbook muppetry does not deserve kid glove treatment.

There's some wonderful powa-fightin' going on in here, and I wonder how much of it is on the general principle that Those Mods Are Power-Tripping Bastards Trying To Deny The World The Glory Of My Humour rather than the more specific ideal of This Ban Was Unwarranted.

I've yet to see why, for example, this ban is so outrageous - it's a week-long ban for a textbook example of muppetry, used to draw a line in the sand and make a point to the forum users in general. If the OP wants access after a week, he can have it. Perhaps he will have learned that the Theory forum is not the place for allegedly-humorous banter and go on to contribute in a worthwhile manner, perhaps not. It's not like this is a siteban or a permaban or something.

5starpool

tbh wrote: »

tell you what. Stroll into your local and call the barman a twat. Then ask him for a pint.

Better still, go into a pub you have rarely been in, and never noticed in, and call the barman a twat, see if you get a pint.

The point is that if you are new to something or somewhere you don't make a pointless, off topic post or action at the start. If you do, you are likely to be treated with little respect as you have not shown any yet.

tbh

to use the pub analogy. It's like if the pub had constant fights between soccer fans and GAA fans. Eventually, the landlord said "No more discussion of football of any kind in here". The next day, a bloke walks in for the first time, and says "can you turn the footie on". The landlord bars him. The guy steps outside and someone tells him the background. The guy has two choices: tell the landlord he didn't understand the rule, and now he does, he won't break it again, or say

"is this some kind of joke? oddly enough i think you are serious. what kind of sh1te exactly are you talking about? and wtf are u in real life or are you just off a bad run and can't get tilt monkey off your back and decide to have a pop at me. i can't see why you would have banned me? my number is xxxxxxxxx and i would appreciate a call for an explanation. is this how you treat newcomers? if you want 'sh1te' and 'sh1te stirring' eliminated then you should consider banning half of the poker forum from what i can see. i'm gobsmacked."


now, which option would you pick, assuming you wanted to drink in that pub again? If you were the barman, and you were presented with both those choices, which one would you dismiss and which would you look favourably on? Why is it that posters can give any amount of crap to mods they like, but mods have to treat all posters with kid gloves?

edit: No-where did I say he should go "crawling" back, and noone said that he had to. all he had to say was "sorry, I didn't know about the rule, it won't happen again". That's hardly crawling.

RoundyMooney

I'd close the pub, and move to Bermuda.

Gandalf23

5starpool wrote: »

Better still, go into a pub you have rarely been in, and never noticed in, and call the barman a twat, see if you get a pint.

The point is that if you are new to something or somewhere you don't make a pointless, off topic post or action at the start. If you do, you are likely to be treated with little respect as you have not shown any yet.

The OP didnt call anyone a "twat" or insult the mod in any way as far as I can see.

Gandalf23

tbh wrote: »

to use the pub analogy. It's like if the pub had constant fights between soccer fans and GAA fans. Eventually, the landlord said "No more discussion of football of any kind in here". The next day, a bloke walks in for the first time, and says "can you turn the footie on". The landlord bars him.

The landlord would not be doing his job properly if this happened. In fact, you could go as far as to say the landlord would be a total and absolute ununderstanding pigheaded bastrad. (We all know the sort).

The landlord would not be fit to be in charge of a pub.

Is this really the kind of landlord you'd like to have in charge of your local?

RE*AC*TOR

The best thing for everyone here is for the OP and Ste05 to sort this out amicably via PM. Then Ste05 should clearly set out whether posts like this are bannable in future. While the post itself was probably not trolling or trouble making, it wasn't a very clever one either. So if non-constructive / +1 posts are not wanted in these types of threads in future then that should be clearly stated. I don't think the OP meant any harm, and I'm sure he and Ste05 can sort this out without going into further handbags (commuting of ban by Ste05 / concession to be more constructive from OP).

tbh

Gandalf23 wrote: »

The landlord would not be doing his job properly if this happened. In fact, you could go as far as to say the landlord would be a total and absolute ununderstanding pigheaded bastrad. (We all know the sort).

The landlord would not be fit to be in charge of a pub.

Is this really the kind of landlord you'd like to have in charge of your local?

it's his pub, he makes the rules. I can always find another pub

Fysh

Gandalf23 - can we step away from your ideas of what makes someone "fit" to run a privately-owned enterprise and back to the issue at hand?

Specifically, why you think that the OP should, having shown poor judgement when posting for the first time in a forum that according to the mod was already having more junk posting than was desirable, should then expect to be treated politely by a mod who has just been the recipient of an abusive PM?

I'm hoping that will clarify your position somewhat; at present it appears that you are espousing the right of posters everywhere to breach charters or act the muppet and yet demand politeness and civility from people who receie no such civility or consideration.

Gandalf23

tbh wrote: »

it's his pub, he makes the rules. I can always find another pub

Stock response in "feedback". I was wondering when it would appear

Better to just put up with the asshole landlord because he's the landlord than accept he may have been wrong? Hail to the all knowing, all powerfull landlord!!! He who can never be wrong!!! And if you dont like that then fcuk off

tbh

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Stock response in "feedback". I was wondering when it would appear

Better to just put up with the asshole landlord because he's the landlord than accept he may have been wrong? Hail to the all knowing, all powerfull landlord!!! He who can never be wrong!!! And if you dont like that then fcuk off

1 person thinks he's an asshole out of how many who post in poker / drink in his pub on a regular basis?

And if you dont like that then fcuk off

in a word, yes. No-one is forcing anyone to post here, and there's nothing to stop anyone who wants to setting up their own website. But you don't go into someone elses house and tell them how to behave.

Gandalf23

Fysh wrote: »

Gandalf23 - can we step away from your ideas of what makes someone "fit" to run a privately-owned enterprise and back to the issue at hand?

Specifically, why you think that the OP should, having shown poor judgement when posting for the first time in a forum that according to the mod was already having more junk posting than was desirable, should then expect to be treated politely by a mod who has just been the recipient of an abusive PM?

The key is that the OP was posting, as you say "for the first time". I think the OP should have been given a bit of slack tbh. He was banned before he gave the mod the "abusive PM", and I think most of us accept at this point the OP didnt have a clue about whats deemed to be "acceptible" conduct on boards.ie.

The OP showed poor judgement no doubt. But he didnt know any better. The mod showed even poorer judgement. He should definitely have known better.

Fysh wrote: »

I'm hoping that will clarify your position somewhat; at present it appears that you are espousing the right of posters everywhere to breach charters or act the muppet and yet demand politeness and civility from people who receie no such civility or consideration.

I am definitely NOT espousing that ... no where in any of my posts have I said that, and my sincerest apologies if I'm not being clear enough.

However, it appears that some here are espousing the exact opposite ... that mods have the right to ban people, rightly or wrongly, and then expect them to come crawling being "cordial and apologetic" in an attempt to get unbanned for something which was wrong in the first place.

If your being fair you'll admit both positions are wrong.

tbh

nobody is saying ANYTHING about crawling.

look at your argument.

The OP showed poor judgement no doubt. But he didnt know any better.

I totally agree with you, and if the OP had sent an apologetic pm to the mod, I'm pretty sure he'd be posting in poker now, and this thread wouldn't exist. However, the contents of the PM he sent to the mod were aggressive and patronising . The mod doesn't know him from Adam, why should he give him the benefit of the doubt? What excuses that kind of behaviour?

The mod showed even poorer judgement. He should definitely have known better.

the mod was implementing a fair and clearly signposted policy which was implemented for the benefit of the WHOLE forum. It's tough on the OP that he fell victim to it, but there it is.

Your entire argument is based on the ban being wrong, and if that were the case, I'd agree with you 100%. However, the ban wasn't wrong.

tallaght01

LOL

the pub analogy is being misused here, gents :P

I think the OP went into the pub, where humour is allowed.

he strolls over to a table, where some guys are playing chess quite seriously.

He sees a guy checkmating the other bloke.

He says "jesus, what a move. I've just jizzed me jocks".

No-one complains, but there's been trouble in this bar before. Not involving this chap, though.

So, the bouncer drags him out and ****s him out the door.

The OP gets a bit grumpy about this.

The landlord tells him he's a dick for getting grumpy, and this proves he must be trouble, so he's now banned for longer than he would originally have been.

Some people are outraged. Others tell him he should go up and apologise to the bouncer and landlord

Reminds me of when Rodney King got arrested for resisting arrest

Gandalf23

tbh wrote: »

No-one is forcing anyone to post here, and there's nothing to stop anyone who wants to setting up their own website. But you don't go into someone elses house and tell them how to behave.

I think this response should be banned form feedback.

If this is your attitude why have feedback at all? Just run the site exactly like its "someone elses house" and do exactly whatever the hell you want ignoring everyone elses opinion. To use your example of someone elses house ... Its a bit like asking guests to dinner ... asking their opinion of the wine ... the guest makes a critical comment ... and the host says "who the fcuk asked you, if you dont like my wine then fcuk off and get your own wine, this is my house and if you dont like my wine then go fcuk off back to your own house and get your own wine". The point being the host asked for opinions of the wine

Please dont take this personally, and I'm not trying to get at you in any way, but your attitude shows a very poor understanding of how boards.ie has evolved and grown over the last 10 years and how Internet communities work and evolve in general.

Gandalf23

tbh wrote: »

I totally agree with you, and if the OP had sent an apologetic pm to the mod, I'm pretty sure he'd be posting in poker now, and this thread wouldn't exist. However, the contents of the PM he sent to the mod were aggressive and patronising . The mod doesn't know him from Adam, why should he give him the benefit of the doubt? What excuses that kind of behaviour?

He should have been given the benefit of the doubt because hes a n00b.

tbh wrote: »

the mod was implementing a fair and clearly signposted policy which was implemented for the benefit of the WHOLE forum. It's tough on the OP that he fell victim to it, but there it is.

Your entire argument is based on the ban being wrong, and if that were the case, I'd agree with you 100%. However, the ban wasn't wrong.

I think more than a few people here think the OP's original ban was wrong.

Can you point out where there is a "fair and clearly signposted policy" in that particular forum pointing out that what the OP did was bannable?

Nerin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I think this response should be banned form feedback.

If this is your attitude why have feedback at all? Just run the site exactly like its "someone elses house" and do exactly whatever the hell you want ignoring everyone elses opinion. To use your example of someone elses house ... Its a bit like asking guests to dinner ... asking their opinion of the wine ... the guest makes a critical comment ... and the host says "who the fcuk asked you, if you dont like my wine then fcuk off and get your own wine, this is my house and if you dont like my wine then go fcuk off back to your own house and get your own wine". The point being the host asked for opinions of the wine

Please dont take this personally, and I'm not trying to get at you in any way, but your attitude shows a very poor understanding of how boards.ie has evolved and grown over the last 10 years and how Internet communities work and evolve in general.

i think youre making a bigger issue out of "No-one is forcing anyone to post here, and there's nothing to stop anyone who wants to setting up their own website."
and i think people are making more of an issue out of it than needs be,using it to have a go at mods,feedback etc.
people who have an issue with OP being told to be cordial and saying its mod ego stroke,thats bull tbh. its logical after people explaining why, the history etc to hold your hands up and go,"oh ok,i didnt know,now i do,understand where youre coming from,sorry about that,can we move on now?" instead people or just being unnecessarily stubborn.

OP did something wrong. the bad part was that he was new and didnt know. but now he does,and that should be that.
none of this cloaked fite teh powah BS should be allowed.

Gandalf23

nerin wrote: »

OP did something wrong. the bad part was that he was new and didnt know. but now he does,and that should be that.

I think there are a few people (some experienced posters and part of the "powah") that think the OP did nothing wrong. Just read back thro the thread to see.

@ nerin ... do you thing the mod did absolutely nothing wrong here? Is the fault all with the OP?

tallaght01

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I think there are a few people (some experienced posters and part of the "powah") that think the OP did nothing wrong. Just read back thro the thread to see.

@ nerin ... do you thing the mod did absolutely nothing wrong here? Is the fault all with the OP?

In fairness, gandalf, it's probably better not to keep looking for blood here.

The more you try and seek out blame etc, the more peoples' backs get up.

Then egos get involved, and people don't budge.

Better for all to ask for the OP to be reinstated, and for the whole thing to be forgotten, before people start falling out.

Anyone up for a group hug?

Fysh

Gandalf23 wrote: »

The key is that the OP was posting, as you say "for the first time". I think the OP should have been given a bit of slack tbh. He was banned before he gave the mod the "abusive PM", and I think most of us accept at this point the OP didnt have a clue about whats deemed to be "acceptible" conduct on boards.ie.

The OP showed poor judgement no doubt. But he didnt know any better. The mod showed even poorer judgement. He should definitely have known better.

I'll be honest with you, I'm not convinced the OP didn't know any better. Being a member for 4 weeks and spending most of that time lurking should have been enough time to get the idea of what was or was not acceptable. Making a mistake on that is fair enough, but responding to the ban with an aggressive PM is not, which appears to have compounded the situation.

Gandalf23 wrote:

I am definitely NOT espousing that ... no where in any of my posts have I said that, and my sincerest apologies if I'm not being clear enough.

However, it appears that some here are espousing the exact opposite ... that mods have the right to ban people, rightly or wrongly, and then expect them to come crawling being "cordial and apologetic" in an attempt to get unbanned for something which was wrong in the first place.

If your being fair you'll admit both positions are wrong.

Ah, fair enough. I have a better idea of where you're coming from now, and I suspect that there's some inadvertent misinterpretation of both your position and the opposing one. I don't think that there's any serious call for overly penitent behaviour from ban-recipients (or at least I hope there isn't and would be opposed to it), and I agree that this would not be beneficial boards as a whole.

At the same time, I do think it's preferable for PMs regarding bans not to be written in a tone of angry affront. I'm wary of responding positively or appearing to respond positively to such behaviour, as it risks suggesting that being aggressive and argumentative is the way to react to bans/warnings if you disagree with the reasoning behind them.

Nerin

@ gandalf, yeah,tbf i think it was heavy handed,imo infraction would have done. but what everybody is ignoring is that people are being overly stubborn/using the OP as an amazing story of how the mods are nazis.
as i told the mod,i had a feedback rant when i was new and that discussion went on for a few pages,and from what i recall,people made fun of it,and people helped me see what was what.
just because you dont get exactly what you want doesnt mean you cant see where people are coming from.
i understand if you feel sorry for the OP,and as i said,i think it was a bit heavy handed BUT also i agree that when the mod was faced with a possible troll in a delicate thread and he wanted to keep the peace,something like an infraction and a pm would have been better.
still think its been made way more of a big deal though than it really is.

Overheal

I think this is more a question of the ridiculously low postCount by the Poster at the time of the infraction. I guess to some, it gets hard to justify putting the effort in with complete freshies: if they're misbehaving from day one, will they continue misbehaving? Whereas if someone has been here a couple weeks, made a few dozen posts without hitting anyone's radar, it at least shows they have the potential for behavior. Or if the material in their posts is constructive.

Case and point is the Leaving Cert forum. When the poster's name is "i-Cheat" and they have one post, and that post is a scan of the Mock exams, its not worth the effort to slap them on the wrist. In that situation I'd sooner delete the account.

Having said that my first post was a thread in legal discussion. Dear old Hullaballu (sp?) had the patience to let me reformat my thread before showing me the door. But looking back on that now I guess I had put a bit of thought into that post to merit the leeway.

Just my 2 cents.

Mr. Incognito

Original ban was harsh tbh.

Poor reaction got him the weeks ban continued.

Manners goes a long way.

Gandalf- I'd actually inclined to agree with you on principle but I don't think this particular set of circumstances merits such a stand.

OllieMac

Gandalf - I agree, completely over the top reaction, too many people sitting on high horses around here. Everyone entitled to opinion, as long as its not an abusive or offensive one.

Nerin

Overheal wrote: »

I think this is more a question of the ridiculously low postCount by the Poster at the time of the infraction. I guess to some, it gets hard to justify putting the effort in with complete freshies: if they're misbehaving from day one, will they continue misbehaving?

yeah,i'd say its difficult,especially with randomers signing up just to cause trouble