censorship on the politics forum

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

...anything I posted about Bertie was backed up by facts and would have been fair comment based on Irish Defamation law

And yet, that's at odds with the legal advice sought and received by the Politics mods.

"But, yeronner, some randomer on the Internet said it wasn't illegal..."

Rock Climber

Villain wrote: »

Well I wasn't really a mod, I requested a froum to be created and it was so I was made mod of it, then someone in Politics was banned but it was never stated on the forum that he was banned and posters were wondering why he wouldn't reply to posts and I simply said he had been banned, hardly a big deal.

You were demodded.Clearly it was a big deal.
Without permission you leaked details of a private discussion on mod aswell as of course discussing moderation in a thread on politics when thats also disallowed.

With regards to tristrame I'll just say I wasn't warned about stalking him by an admin,

Thats a lie.

so we can all get facts wrong and well rock climber when it came to posting in the politics forum you got a long wrong.

probably 90% or more of the voting public shared my view as opposed to your Sinn Féin party line on some of the the issues we may have disagreed on.
Your disdain for the other 90% isn't untypical of many followers of that party though.

Gandalf23

PSI wrote: »

I think OBs point is that you can usually tell from an OP's post (and admittedly, sometimes their posting record) whether their intentions are to discuss a specific issue, or whether they're trying to use the forum to preach a political viewpoint.

One is encouraged the other is not.

The contributions often allow for the value of the discussion, but if the discussion itself is based on an erroneous, mis-represented or mis-understood premise, then the discussion will never really be worthwhile unless you're specifically asking about a hypothetical situation.

For instance, if someone were to start a discussion a thread here stating that immigrants should not be given administrative jobs in this country because administration in their own countries is a failure and this is down to their heritage, it would be hard to imagine a worthwhile discussion coming from that thread. The poster would obviously be someone with an axe to grind and was starting a thread to express his/her distaste for immigrants.

This seems to me to be very dodgy logic, open to a myriad of abuses.

Imagine if feedback was run on this basis

oscarBravo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

This seems to me to be very dodgy logic, open to a myriad of abuses.

In theory, you're right. The good news is that we the moderators are answerable to the site owners for any such abuses. There have been allegations of abuse - this thread is an example - but the allegators (see what I did there?) seem a lot less interested in actually providing any evidence to back up their claims.

This actually matches quite neatly with their behaviour on the Politics forum. They want to make claims, but they don't want to discuss them or back them up. That's what we are describing as soapboxing (there's your definition for you, jessop1) and we consider it an abuse of the forum.

Gandalf23

oscarBravo wrote: »

In theory, you're right.

Yes I am, and this is a big problem. It leaves the politics forum (and each of the individual mods) open to accusations of bias and abuse. Whether the bias is real or perceived doesnt really matter ... you have to be as unbiased as possible and be seen to be as unbiased as possible.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The good news is that we the moderators are answerable to the site owners for any such abuses. There have been allegations of abuse - this thread is an example - but the allegators (see what I did there?) seem a lot less interested in actually providing any evidence to back up their claims.

In fairness OB (and I have no axe to grind here) you seem to be as guilty as the OP of that one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This actually matches quite neatly with their behaviour on the Politics forum. They want to make claims, but they don't want to discuss them or back them up. That's what we are describing as soapboxing (there's your definition for you, jessop1) and we consider it an abuse of the forum.

This does not justify the current approach to modding politics. If what you say above is really the case then this is a modding issue as opposed to a thread organisation issue. Ban the asses of anyone acting like that, and get more mods if needed. Perhaps even direct admin intervention is justified, or borrow some ideas from soccer and PI. The current approach is not working sufficiently or in any fair/impartial way imho.

My 2c is that its crazy to adopt your approach to the Mahon Tribunal and especially the Lisbon Treaty. It stifles debate and gives a "perception" of bias (and as I say above perceived bias is as bad as real bias).

The motors forum had a number of mega-threads on "importing from the UK" and "new VRT/tax regimes" but threads asking specific questions or making specific points about either of these areas are allowed. If there was a requirement to post all VRT related questions/issues in the mega threads the quality of the forum would be significantly diluted.

rockbeer

@oscarBravo: if you can manage it please I'd really appreciate an answer to my first question in post #140: would you allow the identity of the OP to influence your decision about how to handle a given thread?

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

The motors forum had a number of mega-threads on "importing from the UK" and "new VRT/tax regimes" but threads asking specific questions or making specific points about either of these areas are allowed. If there was a requirement to post all VRT related questions/issues in the mega threads the quality of the forum would be significantly diluted.

The motors forums doesn't suffer from as much "agenda driven crap" as Politics though. Half the people on the forum are pushing one ideology or another and it can be very hard to distinguish between those who are actually open to debate and those who are merely looking for preaching space. Personally I'd believe that it's better to err on the side of being lenient but then I've never moderated the place so I've no idea if that would work well.

oscarBravo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Yes I am, and this is a big problem. It leaves the politics forum (and each of the individual mods) open to accusations of bias and abuse.

Moderating the Politics forum leaves us open to accusations of bias and abuse, however we go about it.

Whether the bias is real or perceived doesnt really matter ... you have to be as unbiased as possible and be seen to be as unbiased as possible.

I am as unbiased as possible, and - to those whose opinions I value - I seem to be seen to be unbiased.

In fairness OB (and I have no axe to grind here) you seem to be as guilty as the OP of that one.

If you feel I've stated something without backing it up, challenge me on it rather than waving a vague accusation around.

This does not justify the current approach to modding politics. If what you say above is really the case then this is a modding issue as opposed to a thread organisation issue. Ban the asses of anyone acting like that, and get more mods if needed.

Lovely idea in theory, and we might even move in that direction; we're discussing it behind the scenes.

But just look at this thread: the OP threw a big girly knicker fit, why? Did I ban him? Did I even infract him? No, I had the bloody nerve to suggest he read an existing thread.

He's still not banned from Politics. Interestingly, he hasn't joined in the discussion there. He wants to post his little video, and he doesn't want to have a conversation about it. Our approach is to say "don't do that"; you seem to be suggesting that we should let him do it, and ban him for it. Do you really think that would avoid accusations of bias?

My 2c is that its crazy to adopt your approach to the Mahon Tribunal and especially the Lisbon Treaty. It stifles debate and gives a "perception" of bias (and as I say above perceived bias is as bad as real bias).

The approach to Mahon is based on legal advice. The approach to Lisbon is a reaction to the tactic, almost entirely from one side of the debate, of flooding the forum with falsehoods in the hope of influencing the outcome.

As for a perception of bias, I can't help what people perceive, but I asked jessop1 a simple question: where did I state my political views? He resorted to arm-waving and bluster, because he knew I'd caught him out in a bare-faced lie.

Bizarrely, this clearly illustrates the problem we have. There's a perception of bias, because one muppet has claimed I'm biased, and despite the fact that he refused point-blank to produce a shred of evidence of bias. In the same way, we could allow people to post tons of lies about Lisbon - it may be untrue, but it will influence people's opinions.

oscarBravo

rockbeer wrote: »

@oscarBravo: if you can manage it please I'd really appreciate an answer to my first question in post #140: would you allow the identity of the OP to influence your decision about how to handle a given thread?

I have no idea of the identity of the vast majority of posters. All I can go by is what they post, what their history of Politics posting is, and - to a lesser extent - what their history of posting elsewhere is.

As for the original complaint in this thread, I wouldn't have allowed anyone to start a new thread on the topic with a video link.

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

The motors forums doesn't suffer from as much "agenda driven crap" as Politics though.

There is a fair amount of agenda driven crap on motors ... that particular forum is modded in an excellent manner.

nesf wrote: »

Half the people on the forum are pushing one ideology or another and it can be very hard to distinguish between those who are actually open to debate and those who are merely looking for preaching space. Personally I'd believe that it's better to err on the side of being lenient but then I've never moderated the place so I've no idea if that would work well.

This still does not justify the way politics is currently modded. If someone is looking for "preaching space" they should be banned. The rest of us should not have to suffer our legitimate opinions and debate being stifled, and be forced to use a mega-thread. This is what is currently happening in politics and it simply cannot be justified.

This is not the way to mod a forum ... to let a minority of those seeking "preaching space" dictate how an entire forum is run. Absolutely ridiculous.

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

There is a fair amount of agenda driven crap on motors ... that particular forum is modded in an excellent manner.

I'm still a bit wary of drawing like for like comparisons though. Sure people get irrationally attached to a certain make of car etc but it pales in comparison to the levels of irrationality generated by political parties tbh.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

This is not the way to mod a forum ... to let a minority of those seeking "preaching space" dictate how an entire forum is run. Absolutely ridiculous.

I don't disagree that it's distasteful and highly annoying for anyone wanting to have a proper discussion about the issues but that's the nature of politics. The extremely vocal minorities tend to drown out everyone else etc. I'm not trying to justify the policies being applied in Politics because honestly I've no stake in them or its moderation. I may be a mod on this site but that definitely doesn't mean I agree with every other moderator on here and how every other forum is run. I'm just trying to get at why it's being run in a certain way rather than defending the way it's being run, if that makes sense.

darkman2

I got banned from the politics forum for talking about corruption aswell a while back.



If a politics forum mod is reading this - Can I please be allowed back in politics:)

oscarBravo

Done.

Gandalf23

oscarBravo wrote: »

Moderating the Politics forum leaves us open to accusations of bias and abuse, however we go about it. I am as unbiased as possible, and - to those whose opinions I value - I seem to be seen to be unbiased. If you feel I've stated something without backing it up, challenge me on it rather than waving a vague accusation around

You are coming across as biased and inflexible, and I’m just giving my opinion here as a reasonably neutral observer to this thread. Please don’t take this as personal criticism in any way, I’m just saying that I personally think you are dealing with this whole thing in a very poor way.

oscarBravo wrote: »

He's still not banned from Politics. Interestingly, he hasn't joined in the discussion there. He wants to post his little video, and he doesn't want to have a conversation about it. Our approach is to say "don't do that"; you seem to be suggesting that we should let him do it, and ban him for it. Do you really think that would avoid accusations of bias?

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a perception of bias, because one muppet has claimed I'm biased, and despite the fact that he refused point-blank to produce a shred of evidence of bias. In the same way, we could allow people to post tons of lies about Lisbon - it may be untrue, but it will influence people's opinions.

Why not let him post the video … it probably belongs in Politics. You seem to be giving us boardsies very little credit if you think the entrenched and idiotic ramblings of the OP will influence any of us. I have not decided how to vote on Lisbon yet, and won’t let a thread on Boards.ie swing me either way. Give us more credit OB ffs.

Look OB, you are in danger of strangling politics because you have such a tight grip on it. Let go a little and see what happens. Us boardsies are not gullible fools, and we won’t be influenced by propaganda videos from either side. Step back, loosen your grip, and lets see what happens. I have a feeling a good debate just might take place if there is strong unbiased modding in place.

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

I'm still a bit wary of drawing like for like comparisons though. Sure people get irrationally attached to a certain make of car etc but it pales in comparison to the levels of irrationality generated by political parties tbh

Some of the debated in motors are very political. It frequently kicks off when VRT or the new tax system is mentioned.

nesf wrote: »

I don't disagree that it's distasteful and highly annoying for anyone wanting to have a proper discussion about the issues but that's the nature of politics. The extremely vocal minorities tend to drown out everyone else etc. I'm not trying to justify the policies being applied in Politics because honestly I've no stake in them or its moderation. I may be a mod on this site but that definitely doesn't mean I agree with every other moderator on here and how every other forum is run. I'm just trying to get at why it's being run in a certain way rather than defending the way it's being run, if that makes sense.

Its a modding issue, and politics is currently not being modded sufficiently imho. Its almost like a debate on "Questions and Answers" ... the mod is like John Bowman. He should not let any one contributor shout over everyone else and dominate the debate. He should also not change the format of the debate (ie one mega-thread) because he's afraid of the one shouting loudest. His job is to control the debate and ensure it flows without and one person/agenda/point of view dominating. That way everyone gets a chance to contribute and honest debate is not restricted.

Lads, this is a modding issue. Get more mods (even an admin?) in there and sort this out.

oscarBravo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

You are coming across as biased and inflexible, and I’m just giving my opinion here as a reasonably neutral observer to this thread. Please don’t take this as personal criticism in any way, I’m just saying that I personally think you are dealing with this whole thing in a very poor way.

I'm not taking it personally, but I will point out that, yet again, you're telling me how I'm coming across without actually providing a single link, example, or anything other than a vague impression.

This thread is all about my alleged bias. I asked the OP to back up the allegation of bias, and he couldn't. Now I'm asking you to back up your claim that I'm coming across as biased.

Why not let him post the video … it probably belongs in Politics.

Because I don't believe he's interested in discussing it, and I think he has categorically proved that he's not interested in discussion. That's not the type of thread I want in Politics. I accept that you would mod Politics differently, and if you ever take my place, that will be your call to make.

You seem to be giving us boardsies very little credit if you think the entrenched and idiotic ramblings of the OP will influence any of us. I have not decided how to vote on Lisbon yet, and won’t let a thread on Boards.ie swing me either way. Give us more credit OB ffs.

If I let the entrenched and idiotic ramblings of the OP and his ilk have any more airtime on Politics, it would be fair to accuse me of bias, because there's been more than enough of it already.

Look OB, you are in danger of strangling politics because you have such a tight grip on it. Let go a little and see what happens. Us boardsies are not gullible fools, and we won’t be influenced by propaganda videos from either side. Step back, loosen your grip, and lets see what happens. I have a feeling a good debate just might take place if there is strong unbiased modding in place.

When you back up your accusation of bias, I'll think about changing how I moderate the forum.

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Its a modding issue, and politics is currently not being modded sufficiently imho. Its almost like a debate on "Questions and Answers" ... the mod is like John Bowman. He should not let any one contributor shout over everyone else and dominate the debate. He should also not change the format of the debate (ie one mega-thread) because he's afraid of the one shouting loudest. His job is to control the debate and ensure it flows without and one person/agends/point of view dominating. That way everyone gets a chance to contribute and honest debate is not restricted.

The format for Q&A works because they get to hand pick the speakers. If you replaced them with 5 random political activists then it wouldn't work so well. For instance, how do you view John Bowman cutting off audience members who attempt to use his show as a soapbox?

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

The format for Q&A works because they get to hand pick the speakers. If you replaced them with 5 random political activists then it wouldn't work so well. For instance, how do you view John Bowman cutting off audience members who attempt to use his show as a soapbox?

Thats the job of a chairman/mod.

If you look at last Mondays "Q & A" on RTE1 ... there was some anti-Lisbon guy on the panel. Bowman let him have his say, and the other members of the panel took him apart. Audience members also had their say and some were cut short. This is exactly the job of the chairman/mod imho. Bowman facilitated (did NOT restrict or censor) the debate and viewers made up their own mind.

iamhunted

oscarBravo wrote: »

Go read the Lisbon thread and come back to me if you have something interesting to say. Did I say something that's untrue? If so, please point it out.

i wouldnt bother saying anything in the lisbon thread - as im banned from the forum so I cant anyway. banned for having an opinion that differed I may add. Did you say something untrue? You said the No camp were liars - which I cant prove either way, but ive yet to see your evidence for it.

Time Magazine

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am as unbiased as possible, and - to those whose opinions I value - I seem to be seen to be unbiased.

I've sparred with just about every mod on the Politics forum at some time or another so perhaps you don't value my opinion but personally I think you're biased in favour of not eliminating vermin often enough. I'd love a "Politics for smart people only" forum; 'tis a pity you're such a nazi communist.

Gandalf23

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not taking it personally, but I will point out that, yet again, you're telling me how I'm coming across without actually providing a single link, example, or anything other than a vague impression.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread is all about my alleged bias. I asked the OP to back up the allegation of bias, and he couldn't. Now I'm asking you to back up your claim that I'm coming across as biased.

OB I never once said above that you WERE biased ... I stated my opinion that "you are coming across as biased ... and I’m just giving my opinion here as a reasonably neutral observer to this thread". I'm just giving a personal opinion, and if you wish to dismiss it then thats ok. Others will make up their own mind about how biased/neutral you are.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because I don't believe he's interested in discussing it, and I think he has categorically proved that he's not interested in discussion. That's not the type of thread I want in Politics. I accept that you would mod Politics differently, and if you ever take my place, that will be your call to make. If I let the entrenched and idiotic ramblings of the OP and his ilk have any more airtime on Politics, it would be fair to accuse me of bias, because there's been more than enough of it already. When you back up your accusation of bias, I'll think about changing how I moderate the forum.

I just dont believe that this is the way to mod politics for all the reasons I have stated above.

At this point OB, I believe that you are unwilling to listen to any feedback (imho of course!!!) as you have become as inflexible and intrenched in your position as the OP. Inflexibility and unwillingness to take legitimate feedback on board is a bad trait in a mod ... especially a politics mod. Again, just my opinion and others will make up their own minds.

OB I believe you are too close to this debate at this point to make good judgements about how to mod Lisbon in the politics forum ... this is not a personal critisism, just human nature and to be expected in any passionate person fighting his corner.

It might be time for an Admin to make a call on this.

oscarBravo

iamhunted wrote: »

banned for having an opinion that differed I may add.

An opinion that differed from what, exactly? There are lots of people with different opinions on Politics, and yet most of them manage not to get banned.

Could it be that you were banned for using a new account to evade a ban?

Did you say something untrue? You said the No camp were liars - which I cant prove either way, but ive yet to see your evidence for it.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I haven't said the No camp are liars (nice little distortion of what I actually did say, though). I have pointed out that there has been a fair bit of lying and misleading going on, and that it seems to be coming almost entirely from the No side. I also linked to a thread in CT where I pointed out how deeply flawed the End of Nations video is, as just one example.

If you want more examples, read the Lisbon thread. You can do that by logging out.

oscarBravo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

OB I never once said above that you WERE biased ... I stated my opinion that "you are coming across as biased ... and I’m just giving my opinion here as a reasonably neutral observer to this thread". I'm just giving a personal opinion, and if you wish to dismiss it then thats ok.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm asking you to back it up. If you think I'm coming across as biased, then please explain what it is you think I'm coming across as biased towards or against, and please do so with specific examples.

I just dont believe that this is the way to mod politics for all the reasons I have stated above.

And I don't necessarily agree. I've pointed out why I don't agree with your approach, but you haven't engaged with those points.

At this point OB, I believe that you are unwilling to listen to any feedback (imho of course!!!) as you have become as inflexible and intrenched in your position as the OP.

You're not giving me feedback: you're telling me that you've formed some sort of vague impression of me; you're refusing to explain what I've said or done that has conveyed that impression; and now you're complaining that I'm not willing to change my approach to satisfy your vaguely-expressed dissatisfaction.

As you've said yourself, the appearance of bias is almost as bad as bias. In the same way, an accusation of appearance of bias is (to me) as serious as an accusation of bias, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you back up the accusation.

OB I believe you are too close to this debate at this point to make good judgements about how to mod Lisbon in the politics forum ... this is not a personal critisism, just human nature and to be expected in any passionate person fighting his corner.

This is an implicit accusation of bias, which I take seriously, so I'm going to ask you, as I asked the OP, to either back it up or retract it.

iamhunted

i will gracefully refuse the offer ob - i basically cant be bothered to be honest. I back the OP in his belief that the politics forum is overtightly modded - and to some extent modded with a bias (though we are all biased in our own ways)

As for the banning on politics ... i work in a large company with one IP address. Some dodo in politics couldnt fathom that its possible for 300 people to access the web through the one permanent IP address and so initially banned me for a work colleagues statement. It didnt help either though that Im a shinner. Granted, yes, I got banned another zillion times but never it seems for anything other than ducking a previous ban - which was based on a mod not understanding how the interweb works. Ergo, i kept getting banned when I did try to participate so Ive stopped bothering trying to.

Rock Climber

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Thats the job of a chairman/mod.

If you look at last Mondays "Q & A" on RTE1 ... there was some anti-Lisbon guy on the panel. Bowman let him have his say, and the other members of the panel took him apart. Audience members also had their say and some were cut short. This is exactly the job of the chairman/mod imho. Bowman facilitated (did NOT restrict or censor) the debate and viewers made up their own mind.

Bowman often challenges opinions on Q&A and could be perceived as pushing his opinion too.
But he isn't,he just calls something silly when he see's it.

oscarBravo

iamhunted wrote: »

i will gracefully refuse the offer ob - i basically cant be bothered to be honest. I back the OP in his belief that the politics forum is overtightly modded - and to some extent modded with a bias (though we are all biased in our own ways)

So basically:

"You haven't provided links to back up your assertions."

"Here are the links."

"I can't be bothered reading them, I'm just going to choose not to believe you."

Fair enough.

As for the banning on politics ... i work in a large company with one IP address. Some dodo in politics couldnt fathom that its possible for 300 people to access the web through the one permanent IP address and so initially banned me for a work colleagues statement. It didnt help either though that Im a shinner. Granted, yes, I got banned another zillion times but never it seems for anything other than ducking a previous ban - which was based on a mod not understanding how the interweb works. Ergo, i kept getting banned when I did try to participate so Ive stopped bothering trying to.

Funny, that's not what you said a minute ago.

Gandalf23

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not dismissing it, I'm asking you to back it up. If you think I'm coming across as biased, then please explain what it is you think I'm coming across as biased towards or against, and please do so with specific examples. And I don't necessarily agree. I've pointed out why I don't agree with your approach, but you haven't engaged with those points. You're not giving me feedback: you're telling me that you've formed some sort of vague impression of me; you're refusing to explain what I've said or done that has conveyed that impression; and now you're complaining that I'm not willing to change my approach to satisfy your vaguely-expressed dissatisfaction

Look OB I’m just giving my opinions, and I am not going to justify a personal point of view with examples. I don’t believe I am being vague with my views any way, and if you don’t what to take what I’m saying on board that’s fine. In no way am I personally attacking you, and if I have said anything to offend you I apologise unreservedly. I also appreciate what a difficult job politics mods have and the muppets you have to deal with on a daily basis.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As you've said yourself, the appearance of bias is almost as bad as bias. In the same way, an accusation of appearance of bias is (to me) as serious as an accusation of bias, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you back up the accusation. This is an implicit accusation of bias, which I take seriously, so I'm going to ask you, as I asked the OP, to either back it up or retract it.

As I have said above, I apologise unreservedly for anything I have said that may have offended you, and I never said you were actually biased in any way. I admire your passion and conviction in this. (But remember, one mans passion and conviction is another mans entrenched view and mupperty!!!). However, I stand by everything I have said above, and I’m not retracting anything. Please remember, I’m just giving feedback (my own personal opinion) in an attempt to make boards.ie and the politics forum a better place.

People reading this will make up their own minds.

That’s all I have to contribute really. Good luck with everything OB … I really believe you are a good decent guy, and I hope you come out of this thread a stronger and better mod. Good luck with politics in the future, and all the best in the real world!

gandalf

Jaysus this is turning into right whinge fest.

A couple of things iamhunted an IP address can only be banned by an admin so blaming the politics mods for that is wrong. Creating a new account to get around a ban is something that you will get banned for and quite possibly site banned for.

I stood down as a mod on politics a few months ago, it is a thankless job. You get accused of bias no matter what you do. You have people posting soundbites and not engaging properly in discussions (especially immigration threads) and then they whinge because you lock/delete their threads.

With regard to the Bertie threads I personally disagreed with their position but understood why they took it. They were right especially given the difficulties another site thats been cast as the bastion of free speech earlier in this thread got into.

As regards the Lisbon Treaty I have made my mind up how I am voting. I will be voting no, but not because of the rubbish that jessop01 and others have posted on the politics forum. What I have seen from these fronts is complete and utter scaremongering and bull****. How this thread has dragged on so long is beyond me, I can only summerise that jessop01 is the type of person who doesn't have a clue when they are not going to get what they want and walk away.

iamhunted

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically:

"You haven't provided links to back up your assertions."

"Here are the links."

"I can't be bothered reading them, I'm just going to choose not to believe you."

no, no - you told me to read the lisbon thread. thats not "here are the links"

Fair enough. Funny, that's not what you said a minute ago.

Very funny considering Ive never denied ever being banned before. You sure you're reading the right post there mr bravo?

iamhunted

gandalf wrote: »

Jaysus this is turning into right whinge fest.

A couple of things iamhunted an IP address can only be banned by an admin so blaming the politics mods for that is wrong.

please, read carefully - the IP wasnt banned, I was banned as some genius seen the same IP address and assumed it was the one person. In fact, if Im not mistaken, i think it was you i complained to at the time via PM ....