Is this ban OTT?

Einstein

rb_ie wrote: »

Chris Crocker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

oh....my....god....

i didn't realise till half way through it was a guy...

Chris Crocker for Honorary mod!

Edit: i always thought cheesedude was just another muppet, but his pm's comfirm a lot more.

Kanoe

at first I thought the thread was after hours and I was wondering just how much worse can the modding can get in there, starting a thread about prostitutes and boyfriends would be bound to cause reactions but it's not in AH, it's in PI. senstive issues require considerate responses and all I can see here is unadulterated bullsh*t.

Overheal

Dudess wrote: »

Ban 100% deserved. Cheesedude's comments demonstrating his hatred of women with a less than virginal past are highly offensive (not just former prostitutes, girls who've had one-night stands) but he's within his rights to occupy such a hate-filled position - although maybe he should do something to help him release his anger before things get really nasty.

Anyway, it's not as if Marksie banned him for his first few comments - indeed, appalling as they are, they're not bannable. Plus Marksie definitely only attacked the post and not the poster when talking about his ex who had revealed to him she worked as a prostitute (which he didn't know about when he met her so those who are making smart comments about how he "goes for" prostitutes can shut the FUKK up). It was Cheesedude's nasty response that got him banned:

Obviously abusive. I fail to see how it isn't. And then he goes and abuses Marksie via pm? Deserves a site ban - it's perfectly reasonable for a moderator to extend a ban on the grounds of getting personal abuse in relation to same. No doubt cheesedude will accuse me of being biased because he once sent me a pm saying "Go fukk yourself" (which landed him a temporary site ban). That's beside the point. He was personally abusive, which gets people banned. End of.

also had some nice words in the Thunderdome, but boy you showed him you knocked the wind out of the entire thread with this blow from the which mod would you ban thread:

Dudess wrote:

Are hmods included? Cos if they are, I would SO ban cheesedude for being a disgustingly hypocritical woman hater.
If cheesedude had a girlfriend who admitted she used to work as a prostitute - or even if she admitted she had a few one-night stands, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if he gave her a black eye.

But it's ok for cheesedude to talk about good-looking 17-year-olds as if they're pieces of meat, and to casually remark that he'd use them for sex. Oh, and it's also ok for him to call a promiscuous girl a slapper... but still to fukk her himself.

Quoted for relevance and hilarity. may bring your impartiality into question though? *shrugs* I'd still temp-ban him from boards.

Rb

Overheal wrote: »

Quoted for relevance and hilarity. may bring your impartiality into question though? *shrugs* I'd still temp-ban him from boards.

Doesn't really matter if she's impartial or not, the most important thing that came from her post (imo) is the fact that he's been sitebanned before for abuse.

I also have a funny feeling that if sitebanned, he'll be the type to go on about how everyone here is such a loser/nerd/etc and it's a piece of shít etc and then re-reg to dodge the ban.

Dudess

zxy wrote: »

at first I thought the thread was after hours and I was wondering just how much worse can the modding can get in there, starting a thread about prostitutes and boyfriends would be bound to cause reactions but it's not in AH, it's in PI. senstive issues require considerate responses and all I can see here is unadulterated bullsh*t.

Yeah, you keep making these grandiose statements regarding the standard of moderating. Care to back them up?

Rb

zxy wrote: »

at first I thought the thread was after hours and I was wondering just how much worse can the modding can get in there, starting a thread about prostitutes and boyfriends would be bound to cause reactions but it's not in AH, it's in PI. senstive issues require considerate responses and all I can see here is unadulterated bullsh*t.

What's wrong with the modding in AH?

togster

OP you deserved the ban. You abused Marksie. i have always found him to be a very good mod. You abused the mod and i think you should be sitebanned for posting the pms and in general acting like a tard most of the time.

Duckjob

togster wrote: »

OP you deserved the ban. You abused Marksie. i have always found him to be a very good mod. You abused the mod and i think you should be sitebanned for posting the pms and in general acting like a tard most of the time.

I would say the blame lies 95% with Cheesedude and 5% with Marksie.

Marksie has always had a very honest and personal posting style that IMO contributes a huge amount to discussions in PI. But it also gives scope for personal conflict where a poster uses what he posts to insult as Cheesedude did.

With the best will in the world I dont think a mod could stay impartial in that situation and given that Cheesedude was already 'being Cheesedude' and posting provocatively, I think Marksie would have been wiser not giving him the extra ammunition in the first place.

Having said that, Cheesedude was generally being a knob-end and deserved a permanent PI ban, no question.

Nerin

togster wrote: »

OP you deserved the ban. You abused Marksie. i have always found him to be a very good mod. You abused the mod and i think you should be sitebanned for posting the pms and in general acting like a tard most of the time.

agree here.
seems to be a bit of a bandwagon here,people need to be careful it doesnt collapse from the jumping on it.
cheesedude was obviously being a plank. ive always found marksie to be a great poster/mod.
people need to find a better poster to rally behind for the fight the powah threads.

togster

Duckjob wrote: »

With the best will in the world I dont think a mod could stay impartial in that situation and given that Cheesedude was already 'being Cheesedude' and posting provocatively, I think Marksie would have been wiser not giving him the extra ammunition in the first place.

I agree with what you say about it being difficult to staying impartial. Afterall mods are still posters. Marksies comment was not insulting so i still think he did remain impartial while making a comment about cheesedudes tardness. I remember reading the thread and thinking that Marksie had modded it well. He wasn't heavy handed and made his point rather well.

Vegeta

togster wrote: »

Marksies comment was not insulting so i still think he did remain impartial while making a comment about cheesedudes tardness.

Come off it.

Marksie's post was insulting.

Nerin

Vegeta wrote: »

Come off it.

Marksie's post was insulting.

i dont see it as insulting, some people are just overly sensitive i guess...

humanji

It wasn't insulting at all. He pointed out that a silly, childish and immature post was silly, childish and immature. How is that an insult to the poster? I agree with Nerin, some people really are overly sensitive and I really can't see a reason for it.

Vegeta

humanji wrote: »

It wasn't insulting at all. He pointed out that a silly, childish and immature post was silly, childish and immature. How is that an insult to the poster? I agree with Nerin, some people really are overly sensitive and I really can't see a reason for it.

How can details and facts in a post be immature? That makes no sense

The content/points made can come across as being from an immature or childish poster or written in immature manner but does a post mature after a week or something. Calling a post immature has nothing to do with the details in the post, it reflects soley on the posters tone or style.

I couldn't care less to be honest (this is serious business after all) but to say Marksie is completely blameless is incorrect in my opinion.

Due to the further PMs, cheesedude got what was coming but it may never have got that far if he wasn't goaded.

aidan_walsh

Vegeta wrote:

How can details and facts in a post be immature?

Discounting the added cheap, personal shot at Marksie?

Villain

Was Marksie trolling or did he really go out with a Prostitute?

Sherifu

Villain wrote: »

Was Marksie trolling or did he really go out with a Prostitute?

:facepalm:

Villain

Sherifu wrote: »

A PI mod trolling the PI forum?

Anything's possible I would have thought its more likley he was trolling than he went out with a prostitute, obviously not.

faceman

Im not familiar with any previous banning experiences with cheesedude but his smart comments toward Marksie had no place in PI or anywhere else regardless of what Marksie said to him beforehand. Im not the biggest fan in the world of PI but i do feel that what cheesedude said wasnt helpful in the greater context of things anyway.

Just because cheesedude posted statistics to back himself doesnt mean the statistics carry any merit and certainly from the OP's point of view in the PI thread didnt add anything at all. Aside from that, a DIT survey of 22 prostitutes doesnt count for much, except being a survey of 22 dublin based prostitutes. Not a fair respresentative of prostitution in anyones book.

Marksie may not have been impartial in his decision, his comments about the maturity of cheesedude's post look to me as being made by Marksie the poster rather than Marksie the mod. He didnt threaten any infractions or bans at that point but if cheesedude had an issue with the comment, thats what the aul report post is for etc. Marksie then put the scenario to the relevent people given the circumstances so i dont really believe Marksie carries any blame at all imo.

The_Minister

Villain wrote: »

Was Marksie trolling or did he really go out with a Prostitute?

I think she used to be a prostitute.

humanji

Vegeta wrote: »

How can details and facts in a post be immature? That makes no sense

Well, where are the details and facts in:

And that is also why banging heroin addicted prostitutes with genital warts and Aids is not considered an extreme sport.

It's a childish, baseless post that wasn't necessary.

Dudess

Villain wrote: »

Anything's possible I would have thought its more likley he was trolling than he went out with a prostitute, obviously not.

He didn't find out until after he started going out with her that she had worked as a prostitute. As for it being so unbelievable that he was accepting of her past life, meh, some people - crazy as it sounds - have compassion and understanding and bear in mind that there are those who don't have it very easy and can end up in terrible circumstances. It seems the attitude shown towards Mary Magdalene in the bible hasn't particularly diminished in the 2,000 years since.

Cheesedude has shown himself to be capable of very nasty, cruel, hurtful comments - this is far from an isolated incident. No way was Marksie out of line.

Marcus.Aurelius

While Cheesedude's comments deserves the ban he received, Marksie's comments were unneccessarily harsh and silly considering his status as moderator. No personal comments should pass around like that, especially from a moderator. I find Marksie an excellent moderator, but his comments are out of line too.

Cheesedude, Ban deserved.

RoundyMooney

I support Marksies actions in this case.

He did the right thing in stepping back.

Marksie

OK lets clear this up. It was several years ago, and no i was not trolling.

The lady in question told me her past early on and left it up to me to decide.

She explained her motivations and the fact it was short term. (i actually do belive if you scan back i will have mentioned it a couple of years ago). I do not intend to rehash it here.

I chose to look past the obvious and at the person in question as a person not a label.
That is the end of that story as far as I am concerned. If i chose to post it its because i am comfortable with it.

To the issue of the initial banning: right, aoplogies for not doing so in more detail earlier...

The series of posts by cheesedude were borderline in context and tone, howver when is a mod a poster..so i felt i had to respond to that post. I determined that trying to highlight the immaturity of the post was the way to do this and yes in moderating if someone approaches a post in such a fashion, i will personally accept it as dealing with the post.

He responded and the first line is the one i deemed stepped over the boundary, so it was in the end the whole series of posts, he had put forward leading up until that one
Initially it was one week, but his final parting shot made it a longer ban.

Now in the PMs that followed, he ended with the PM comment posted here. I had decided to step away and not engage in a PM slanging match.
As explained earlier i sent all to an Smod for final decision for the reasons given. Stepping away as obviously at this point i was not unbiased in my moderating

I have refused to respond to his posting of his final PM comment, or engage in direct discussion about cheesdude except in the context of the posts and thread. Neither have i produced his final pm message here, its quite simple, it has once again gone to an SMod.

Now given three days passed without a feedback thread over the initial decision, i can only assume that the thread was started to deal with the permanent banning.
So the posting of the final comment of his made in the PM, could be seen as asking was the final outcome valid in terms of what was said via PM, for that is what in my PM was said to him was the reason.
If he posted the PM contents for any other reason than that, its for him to explain.

However, i have seen nothing so far to indicate that i was mistaken either in my initial moderating decisions. Or the process by which i ensured i was making the correct final decision.

If cheesedude is hoping i would engage again and enter into an argument over what he said via PM or get narky for him posting it in the first place, i am going to have to disappoint him.

Mena

Is the ban OTT? The only thing that really "punches me in the face" OTT is

I think you do...Just because i backed up what i said, it hurt you...i don't blame you...i'd feel pretty useless if i went out with a whore too.

Poor form that.

Dudess

Marksie wrote: »

I chose to look past the obvious and at the person in question as a person not a label.

It's so sad that there are people here (not just cheesedude) who view the above as a sign of weakness or failure.

Overheal

Dudess wrote: »

It's so sad that there are people here (not just cheesedude) who view the above as a sign of weakness or failure.

?

Dudess

People like these:

FunkyChicken wrote: »

Ban marksie for sleeping with a whore

Villain wrote: »

Anything's possible I would have thought its more likley he was trolling than he went out with a prostitute, obviously not.

They think it's a negative that he overlooked this girl's past and concentrated on who she was when he met her, not the things she had done prior to that. A sign of a very confident, secure person if you ask me.

The_Minister

Dudess wrote: »

They think it's a negative that he overlooked this girl's past and concentrated on who she was when he met her, not the things she had done prior to that. A sign of a very confident, secure person if you ask me.

Did you think that maybe some people (not me, I even think there is a case for legalisation), find selling your body for money disgusting? That maybe they see it as something very bad, and a sign of the type of person that they are, that they are capable of trading themselves, and as such, not something that can easily be left behind, just by stopping?
Just because you stop doing something, doesn't mean that you aren't the same person who did it in the first place.
I'm saying this really badly, but I don't think people are nessacerily childish, or insecure, because they won't just write off everything that someone did in the past.