Banned from Shooting

bunny shooter

A reply of "still a muppet with a grudge now infrat that" to a Mod.

Does this warrant a 7 day ban?

I have rec'd a weeks ban from shooting. Seems Sparky holds a grudge despite me staying away from the site to let things cool. Admins I am not gonna start an unban me campaign here just bringing it to your attention. I wonder if my participation in another shooting forum is the real reason he now hates me so much :rolleyes:

Adam

yes.

bunny shooter

really ? i thought i was being sensitive :rolleyes:

Ruu_Old

Thread moved to Helpdesk, no need for any outside noise from other users. Link to the thread where you were banned, you'll have to log out to view the Shooting forum.

bunny shooter

Ruu wrote: »

Thread moved to Helpdesk, no need for any outside noise from other users. Link to the thread where you were banned, you'll have to log out to view the Shooting forum.

Thank You

bunny shooter

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055375713

Ruu this is the thread

Ruu_Old

Thanks, IRL Conor has been allowed access to the Helpdesk to have his say.

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

A reply of "still a muppet with a grudge now infrat that" to a Mod.

Does this warrant a 7 day ban?

Given that it was in response to an infraction for what appeared to be a suggestion that another (helpful, polite) poster should leave, yes, IMO it warrants a ban.

The sensible thing to do if you receive an infraction is to either:

1. If you think the infraction was fair: Realise the error of your ways and not dig yourself in any deeper
2. If you think the infraction was unfair: Take it up here

PMing the mod calling them a muppet and implying that they bear a grudge is not helpful.

bunny shooter wrote: »

I have rec'd a weeks ban from shooting. Seems Sparky holds a grudge despite me staying away from the site to let things cool.

I wonder if my participation in another shooting forum is the real reason he now hates me so much :rolleyes:

Both myself and Sparks participate in at least one other shooting forum, so that's hardly a reason. I don't hate you and, as far as I know, neither does Sparks.

bunny shooter

IRL CONNOR, you know well myself and Sparks have had a good few clashes and he doesn't like to loose so therefore, don't talk sh**te.

I don't reckon it was abuse of the other poster wonder does he/she? Did the 'victim' in question complain? Some of the shooting mods are too quick to Mod the forum IMO

Sparks infracted me and I abused him by PM so why did you ban me then? To make it look like it isn't a vendetta on his part How do you know I abused him? I did it by PM

A new forum opened recently and Sparks is not too happy about it especially now he can't look in there without committing as a member

He was quick to PM me and jibe me about being a Mod there Strangely, I saw the humour in his PM, something he has no concept of, humour.

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

IRL CONNOR, you know well myself and Sparks have had a good few clashes and he doesn't like to loose so therefore, don't talk sh**te.

You're assuming Sparks has lost an argument with you there. :P

bunny shooter wrote: »

Ever hear of humour, sarcasm or satire ?

Yes, and given your history on the Shooting forums, I doubt your post was any of the above. If it was intended to be, you need to learn a hell of a lot about all three.

bunny shooter wrote: »

I don't reckon it was abuse of the other poster wonder does he/she? Did the 'victim' in question complain?

Mr Mole did not complain. (At least not to me, he/she may have complained to another mod but I didn't hear anything about it.)

bunny shooter wrote: »

Some of the shooting mods are too quick to Mod the forum IMO

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Perhaps your perception is skewed somewhat since you come to the attention of the mods more frequently than most other posters?

How many other regular posters in the Shooting forum have received infractions? How many have been banned? See any pattern emerging?

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks infracted me and I abused him by PM so why did you ban me then? To make it look like it isn't a vendetta on his part

No. What happened was:

1. You abused Sparks by PM
2. He PMed myself, Rovi and Vegeta to ask our opinion
3. I figured you deserved a ban so I handed it out rather than waste our time discussing whether you deserved it or not.

You openly admit you gave abuse to a mod. What did you expect in return?

bunny shooter

IRLConor wrote: »

You're assuming Sparks has lost an argument with you there. :P

Is this meant to be humour :rolleyes: I got banned for as much

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes, and given your history on the Shooting forums, I doubt your post was any of the above. If it was intended to be, you need to learn a hell of a lot about all three.

In your 'expert' opinion

IRLConor wrote: »

Mr Mole did not complain. (At least not to me, he/she may have complained to another mod but I didn't hear anything about it.)

QED so ye decide for him/her when he/she has been abused

IRLConor wrote: »

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Perhaps your perception is skewed somewhat since you come to the attention of the mods more frequently than most other posters?

stats to back this up please

IRLConor wrote: »

How many other regular posters in the Shooting forum have received infractions? How many have been banned? See any pattern emerging?

My 2nd infraction and 1st ban, just for the record

IRLConor wrote: »

No. What happened was:

1. You abused Sparks by PM
2. He PMed myself, Rovi and Vegeta to ask our opinion
3. I figured you deserved a ban so I handed it out rather than waste our time discussing whether you deserved it or not.

QED must be the first time he ever asked for someone elses opinion

IRLConor wrote: »

You openly admit you gave abuse to a mod. What did you expect in return?

you/they decided it is/was abuse, who am I to contradict you/them !

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

Is this meant to be humour :rolleyes: I got banned for as much

No, you got banned for abuse. Abuse is not humour.

bunny shooter wrote: »

QED so ye decide for him/her when he/she has been abused

Yes, when it's obvious. If it's not obvious I let it slide unless the person on the receiving end complains.

Note that you weren't infracted for abusing someone, you were just unnecessarily rude to someone for no good reason. Doing that is unhelpful and causes arguments so we discourage it with the use of infractions.

You were banned for abuse, and that abuse was clear cut, intended to insult and you have defined it as abuse yourself in post #9 in this thread. Clear cut I'd say.

bunny shooter wrote: »

stats to back this up please

"Come to the attention of" includes such things as me saying to myself "Oh, FFS, there's bunny shooter causing trouble again". I have better things to be doing than keeping statistics of stuff like that.

bunny shooter wrote: »

My 2nd infraction and 1st ban, just for the record

I know, I checked.

The vast majority of posters have 0 bans, 0 infractions, 0 warnings and have come nowhere near deserving any.

Is this because they always stay within the rules or is it because they always agree with Sparks?

bunny shooter wrote: »

QED must be the first time he ever asked for someone elses opinion

:rolleyes: Usually if a shooting mod gets hassle they e-mail the other mods first for an opinion. Sparks is no different in that regard.




As far as I'm concerned, you gave abuse to Sparks. You admitted that in post #9 here. Open and shut case, you deserved the ban.

If Ruu or any other SMod/Admin needs further input from me on this I'm willing to contribute further. Otherwise, I don't see much point in arguing this further.

bunny shooter

My last comments on the subject are as follows:

Sparks deemed my original comment abuse and infracted me for it. I PM'd him and "abused" him according to IRL CONNOR, in the notification of my ban. I will admit I wasn't happy with the infraction and in light of previous incidents with Sparks I was less than tactful.

I get a weeks ban from IRL CONNOR. The ban is not the problem. It's the way Sparks and IRL CONNOR seem to be the dynamic duo with regard to modding the shooting forum. +90% of the modding in the shooting forum is carried out by these two and it seems you upset one you upset the other.

The original post was "cough, cough, goodbye, cough, cough". This was deemed abuse of a fellow poster by Sparks, over zealous modding, IMHO, considering the abusee doesn't seem to have made a compliant, yet.

I apologise to Mr. Mole for any offence he/she may have felt, none was intended by me.

To Sparks, no apology will ensue as I feel your motives are suspect

To IRL CONNOR, no apology will ensue as I feel your loyalty to Sparks is misguided.

To the SMODS, I would now like to request my ban to be overturned on the grounds of excessive modding on behalf of IRL CONNOR.

A judgement here by an SMOD would be appreciated.

There are those in the Shooting Forum who will stand up and be counted if they realise they will not be victimised as I am !

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks deemed my original comment abuse and infracted me for it. I PM'd him and "abused" him according to IRL CONNOR, in the notification of my ban.

I've explained to you before - at length - that we do not seek a complaint from someone who is being abused on the forums. That would be ignoring the first rule of the forum charter. But since you seem to believe that if noone complains, no harm is done, consider this a complaint. I'm done with the idea that a mod has to have a thicker skin than other posters, and I'm very done with your conversion of that incorrect idea into permission to abuse the mods.

I get a weeks ban from IRL CONNOR. The ban is not the problem. It's the way Sparks and IRL CONNOR seem to be the dynamic duo with regard to modding the shooting forum. +90% of the modding in the shooting forum is carried out by these two and it seems you upset one you upset the other.

First off, disclosure is needed here. Bunny, you are a mod on another forum out there, one set up by a commercial interest in the shooting community, in direct competition to the boards.ie forum, but under the control of certain "pillars of the community". Now if you want to have such a place, go for it. Free country and it may suit some more than others. Personally, I want no part in it because I think it won't succeed - by my count it's the sixth such attempt, and its predecessors had far larger commercial interests backing them - but also because it's the wrong solution to the problem we had with NGBs retaliating against people who complained when things were run badly.

But I do insist that you don't come in here and abuse our users and tell them to leave our forum, and then proclaim objectivity when complaining.

Secondly, 90% of the work is not done by me and IRLConor - Rovi and Vegeta both carry equal shares of the load, but in areas of the forums you don't post in very much. They are, however, well aware of the problems you've caused in the past because all four of us remain in constant contact.

There are those in the Shooting Forum who will stand up and be counted if they realise they will not be victimised !

The reason they realise they will not be victimised bunny, is that we don't permit anyone to abuse anyone else, regardless of the opinions they profer, and we don't wait for them to make a formal complaint, we just deal with the user who's breaking the first rule of the charter in order to lay into them. Which is why you telling Mole to get lost got you infracted.

As to why you've been given so little leeway by the shooting mods, it's because:

1. You've taken up enormous amounts of mod time and effort. No other posters (bar one, whose actions resulted in the forum being closed down because we tried to appear to be fair as well as be fair) have come close to requiring so much work.
2. You have external interests that you didn't disclose;
3. You're, frankly, a bully who cannot abide anyone having a differing opinion to yourself and you cannot seem to limit yourself to trying to argue your case in a civil fashion.

bunny shooter

Just for the record, you are harping about disclosure, I stated in post #1 here about my participation in another forum. I mentioned it too in post #9 here regarding the jibe in a PM from you regarding the fact I'm a Mod there. So how have I attempted to hide these facts? You're reference to this other site here and the comments you've made only confirm to me a certain amount of sour grapes on your part that someone dares to infringe on your little empire.

As for the rest of you're tirade, if you feel you have to justify your actions then you must reckon they need justifing

Sparks

There is a modicum of a difference between posting in another forum (which we all do, in far more than just one or two other forums); and actually moderating another forum - one set up to compete with here - and coming into this one to tell users not to use this forum. The former is perfectly acceptable; the latter is decidedly dishonest.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just for the record, you are harping about disclosure, I stated in post #1 here about my participation in another forum. I mentioned it too in post #9 here regarding the jibe in a PM from you regarding the fact I'm a Mod there. So how have I attempted to hide these facts?

By never revealing them on this site until nine posts into a complaint about the objectivity of the mods on the shooting forum - the second such complaint you've made since becoming a mod elsewhere.

You're reference to this other site here and the comments you've made only confirm to me a certain amount of sour grapes on your part that someone dares to infringe on your little empire

Despite the hookers and coke, it's not really an empire. More a fiefdom. Alas, since it's not a commercial operation, I can't make money off it.

As for the rest of you're tirade, if you feel you have to justify your actions then you must reckon they need justifing

So if I defend myself from your mudslinging, I'm obviously guilty, and if I don't then I'm obviously not able to defend myself because I'm guilty?

bunny shooter

when i said "cough, cough, goodbye, cough, cough" did you ever think I was the one going away ? As in I have heard enough ? :rolleyes:

Or is you're interpetation the only one that counts? :eek:

bunny shooter

When you're up to you're mouth in ****e, don't open it

Case proven as far as I'm concerned

Check-mate

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

when i said "cough, cough, goodbye, cough, cough" did you ever think I was the one going away ? As in I have heard enough ? :rolleyes:

Nope, because that's not what you meant and it was plain and obvious what you did mean in context, even without knowing your past history of posts, which would only reinforce the interpretation.

Or is you're interpetation the only one that counts? :eek:

Are you complaining about a decision or the mod system in boards.ie itself?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

When you're up to you're mouth in ****e, don't open it
Case proven as far as I'm concerned
Check-mate

Can't argue with logic like that.

bunny shooter

I have no further comments to make on this subject.

I now leave it in the lap of the SMODS

Gordon

bunny shooter wrote: »

My last comments on the subject are as follows:

Sparks deemed my original comment abuse and infracted me for it.

If the mod deems what you say as abuse then it is seen as abuse, the poster you are abusing does not have to agree. The mod is considering the whole forum, not simply your one on one conversation to someone.

I PM'd him and "abused" him according to IRL CONNOR, in the notification of my ban. I will admit I wasn't happy with the infraction and in light of previous incidents with Sparks I was less than tactful.

If you yourself agree that you could have had more tact then I think it is safe to say that you must have said something rather untoward for a human being to say to another human being.

I get a weeks ban from IRL CONNOR.

Good, it's much better that a different mod will look at the situation, this just makes it more difficult for mods to be banning people for personal reasons. If there is a personal problem between two people and one is a mod then another mod should make the call.

The ban is not the problem.

So you agree with the ban.

It's the way Sparks and IRL CONNOR seem to be the dynamic duo with regard to modding the shooting forum. +90% of the modding in the shooting forum is carried out by these two and it seems you upset one you upset the other.

If that is true, what is the problem with it? Should all mods hold diametrically opposing views? How does this work when more than two mods exist?

The original post was "cough, cough, goodbye, cough, cough". This was deemed abuse of a fellow poster by Sparks, over zealous modding, IMHO, considering the abusee doesn't seem to have made a compliant, yet.

That doesn't matter. Is it only when someone complains that we should change the world to suit the complainer?

I apologise to Mr. Mole for any offence he/she may have felt, none was intended by me.

To Sparks, no apology will ensue as I feel your motives are suspect

To IRL CONNOR, no apology will ensue as I feel your loyalty to Sparks is misguided.

Apologies are over-rated imo, a good apology is one that doesn't need to be said in the first place.

To the SMODS, I would now like to request my ban to be overturned on the grounds of excessive modding on behalf of IRL CONNOR.

A judgement here by an SMOD would be appreciated.

I don't see any reason why someone should not be banned for making untoward comments to a mod when the mod was trying to look after the forum he mods and keeping it pleasant and enjoyable for its users.

There are those in the Shooting Forum who will stand up and be counted if they realise they will not be victimised as I am !

Quite a dramatic statement there. If they realise that they won't be victimised then they will stand up and be counted? Is that what you mean? Well, they won't be victimised so they can feel free to stand up and be counted, I don't have a problem counting people. I don't understand what you are getting at though to be honest.

Bunny shooter, maybe you can explain exactly what you meant by "cough cough goodbye cough cough"?

It means two things to me (being a non shooting forum reader).
1) "Go away"
or
2) "I am going away"

Surely it can't be number two because you wouldn't care about being banned, and if it is number one then.. well, that's not a very nice thing to say to someone. So what exactly did you mean by that comment?

bunny shooter

Gordon I meant 2 at the time. Now, I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb :rolleyes:

Gordon

If you meant #2 then why kick up a fuss over the forum in this thread? I don't get it.

bunny shooter

I got an infraction from Sparks, which I disagreed with and a 7 day ban from IrlConnor, after a rash PM to Sparks

I originally posted in feedback and it was moved here by RUU

Vegeta

Bunny if I had got there before IRLConor, I would have acted in a very simialr manner.

So they are not in cahoots against you. Are you a saucepan man or tinfoil hat?

bunny shooter

Vegeta, I will not dignify this 'abuse' with an answer :rolleyes:

Vegeta

bunny shooter wrote: »

Vegeta, I will not dignify this 'abuse' with an answer :rolleyes:

Ok

bunny shooter

While you've brought up disclosure Sparks I do hope you haven't forgotten to explain to the SMODS about "The List" you knew nothing about but then remembered another one you did know about. Oh, sorry, this was part of me causing trouble. Proverbial shot in the foot

IRLConor

For the gallery, that story goes something like this:

bunny shooter: The NTSA handed in a list of pistols to the DoJ and said "This is all you need for pistol shooting in Ireland". They stabbed all the other shooters in the back!
Sparks: They did no such thing
bunny shooter: There was a list handed in to the DoJ!
Sparks: Well, there was this {shows some pictures of ISSF pistols} but the NTSA said nothing about those being the only pistols needed for competition and it wasn't presented as a comprehensive list.
bunny shooter: Aha! So there was a list of pistols handed in to <insert nefarious plot of the day here>
Sparks: No, that list was shown to let the DoJ see what they were legislating for.
bunny shooter: You're clearly trying to hide something. You denied the list ever existed!

and so on ad nauseam.

The story bunny shooter was fed is full of shit but he still likes repeating it for whatever reason.