Yet another "Banned" thread

jank · 18-01-2009 3:15pm #1

Good afternoon

I have just been banned from the Military forum. Now I normally never visit the place. However, since the outbreak of the latest Gaza crisis I looked at the place a few times trying to get the opinions of soldiers and the like. Trying to see where they come from and see any new insights to the crisis from their point of view.

My original post was this

Ill ask one question.

What has the latest incursion by Israel into Gaza achieved for a longer lasting peace settlement?

Answer away.

Nothing wrong with this! The response.

Does this answer it..

'Going to war for peace is like ****ing for virginity'.

To which I replied

I need not say anymore

A typical meathead response.

You might as well close this thread now

Anyway I posted a valid question on the topic in a thread and got a smart assed comment back from the MOD of the forum. I replied with my own smart assed comment and got banned for it. I was going to leave it at that but of course he banned me.

At least he did try to discuss it with me but I couldn’t continue the discussion

To answer your question, one rarely brings the other.

Will Israel's latest incursion bring a lasting peace settlement, unlikely.

I agree with this and my previous posts in the politics forum back this up

However this is what galls me.

He says

Lets discuss the rest in a week!.

Lads, in post #19 of this thread I with drew from the discussion. It doesn't mean I was going to ignore the thread completely, but I wasn't getting involved in a heated debate of which I'm biased to.

Don't incur a stupid banning, they don't make anyone feel good - not the person banned for the Mod for banning someone.

Tbh, I'd rather have a 'kick up the arse and cop yourself on' button!.

Regards.

So he is not going to get involved in this thread because he is "biased" yet responds to my thread and then bans me for the "meathead" response. Like you are either in or out. You cant just jump in when you like it and then jump out when it doesnt suit you and say "Im the MOD, I have to be neutral!!!" blah blah blah. I admire him actually to try and stay out and be neutral but he should have been true to his word.

Of course a simple PM to me would have sufficed here!

Now surely to have a reasonable debate take place the mod should take steps in have some semblance of neutrality on issue but he can also voice his opinion like in the politics forum where they do a good job on this. But this obvious "get out clause" when it suits cannot be used to provoke and ban people.

Terry · 18-01-2009 3:48pm

Did you PM the mod in question?

If so, have they replied?
They may not be near a computer at the moment.

jank · 18-01-2009 3:55pm

Yes i did and the ban stands.

leninbenjamin · 18-01-2009 3:59pm

what were you banned for? you actually attacked the post and not the poster, albeit treading a fine line, but that should not have been a ban imo.

Daysha · 18-01-2009 4:33pm

Can't really see a problem with it either tbh

Sully · 18-01-2009 4:48pm

deise59 wrote: »

Can't really see a problem with it either tbh

With which?

I don't see any harm in what the OP said. Unless his posts were put here out of context but the mod gave as much as he got tbh

Daysha · 18-01-2009 5:01pm

Sully wrote: »

With which?

I don't see any harm in what the OP said. Unless his posts were put here out of context but the mod gave as much as he got tbh

Sorry, wasn't clear. I can't see a problem with how the OP responded to the mods original response. A ban is pretty harsh tbh

Hagar · 18-01-2009 5:19pm

You were banned for 7 days for calling the mod a meathead.
Were you expecting a shorter ban or a longer ban?

javaboy · 18-01-2009 5:39pm

If I called Hagar's reply above a typical fuckwit post, it implies I think he is one right? Calling it a typical meathead post looks less like abuse because meathead is a softer insult than ****wit but it's the same thing.

The ironic thing is that the post in question that said "Going to war for peace is like ****ing for virginity" isn't even a meathead post anyway. It's more dove than hawk. A typical meathead post might be "Yeah war! War is awesome and solves all the world's problems."

hullaballoo · 18-01-2009 5:45pm

In my opinion, and it's just my opinion; I don't have any say in this matter as far as I'm concerned but an infraction would have been sufficient. I'm not quite sure that the OP really did call the mod a meathead - and even if he did - so what?

javaboy wrote:

The ironic thing is that the post in question that said "Going to war for peace is like ****ing for virginity" isn't even a meathead post anyway. It's more dove than hawk. A typical meathead post might be "Yeah war! War is awesome and solves all the world's problems."

+1.

sceptre · 18-01-2009 5:52pm

javaboy wrote: »

If I called Hagar's reply above a typical fuckwit post, it implies I think he is one right? Calling it a typical meathead post looks less like abuse because meathead is a softer insult than ****wit but it's the same thing.

That'd be my view. People occasionally think they're "attacking" the post when they're attacking the poster as much.

Even in a pointed disagreement it's often more effective to take a post apart piece by piece than by merely "attacking" it.

A post where the primary thrust is nothing more than "A typical meathead response" isn't the kind of post I'd ignore as a moderator.

javaboy · 18-01-2009 5:53pm

Yeah an infraction would probably have done the job. I think the wording of the post does imply the mod is a meathead but insults from the era of the three stooges should probably be seen as lesser offences.

jank · 18-01-2009 5:57pm

The ironic thing is that the post in question that said "Going to war for peace is like ****ing for virginity" isn't even a meathead post anyway. It's more dove than hawk. A typical meathead post might be "Yeah war! War is awesome and solves all the world's problems."

Not very clear what he was trying to say to be honest. His post could be interpreted as "burn baby burn". What use is peace when guns kick ass!!!!!

He later clarifed to me it was not. Anyway he was very pro military intervention by Israel poster judged by previous posts. Which led me to the above conclusion. I may have been mislead. I was then told that he hates war and all it stands for...??

But of an oxymoron tbh.

javaboy · 18-01-2009 6:01pm

jank wrote: »

Not very clear what he was trying to say to be honest. His post could be interpreted as "burn baby burn". What use is peace when guns kick ass!!!!!

I always thought that saying was pretty clear in its meaning. Virginity=no ****ing. Peace=no war. It ridicules the futility of war as a means of achieving peace.

Anyway he was very pro military intervention by Israel poster judged by previous posts. Which led me to the above conclusion. I may have been mislead. I was then told that he hates war and all it stands for...??

But of an oxymoron tbh.

Well I hate war and all it stands for but we live in an imperfect world and occasionally it can seem like the best available option.

Hagar · 18-01-2009 6:17pm

jank wrote: »

Anyway he was very pro military intervention by Israel poster judged by previous posts.

Mairt is pro-Isreali, I'm Pro-Palestinian and Dub13 is pro-Liverpool.

Our personal stance on this issue is not in question.
What is in question is you calling somebody a meathead.
Call any poster on any forum I mod a meathead and I will ban you.
Call any mod on any forum I mod a meathead and I will ban you.

Call a Soccer mod/PI mod/Politics mod a meathead and come back and let me know how you got on. Infracted? I don't think so.

The charter is quite specific regarding personal abuse, "Trolling and personal abuse will not be tolerated."

All that said, anyone can make a mistake, if you are prepared to acknowledge that you were wrong to do what you did, the ban will be reviewed. If not sit out the week, you can still read the forum.

Hagar · 18-01-2009 6:54pm

leninbenjamin wrote:

no. the question is DID he call someone a meathead? i don't see how one can make that assertion. he said 'typical meathead post' which literally means it is a meatheaded post. but if that's seen as calling the mod a meathead directly, then if i call your post stupid is that considered the same as me calling you stupid? boards has always drawn a line between these two things... has it changed all of a sudden?

Mairt, as the insulted party, seems to think he did. That's why he banned him. I support his decision.

/edit/
Now where did leninbenjamin's post go?

Daysha · 18-01-2009 7:03pm

If the OP said "a typical meathead poster" then that deserves a ban, but that's not what he said.

He followed the rules expressed in tons of forums here. "In debates, attack the post, not the poster".

I don't really understand all the confusion tbh

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2009 7:41pm

The ban is only for one week, the war won't be over by the time you get back if you want to continue to discuss the incursion.

The ban is justified and stays so far as I'm concerned.
.

Daysha · 18-01-2009 7:50pm

Mairt wrote: »

The ban is only for one week, the war won't be over by the time you get back if you want to continue to discuss the incursion.

Are you really saying you take into account the length of the war when considering a course of action?!

That should have nothing to do with the decision tbh.

Mairt wrote: »

The ban is justified and stays so far as I'm concerned.
.

And what about the issues raised above? Care to address those? Like me and a good few others here, he was attacking the post, not the poster.

Terry · 18-01-2009 7:58pm

deise59 wrote: »

Are you really saying you take into account the length of the war when considering a course of action?!

That should have nothing to do with the decision tbh.

You know quite well that is not what he is saying.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2009 8:03pm

deise59 wrote: »

Are you really saying you take into account the length of the war when considering a course of action?!

That should have nothing to do with the decision tbh.

And what about the issues raised above? Care to address those? Like me and a good few others here, he was attacking the post, not the poster.

I don't really care for what you think tbh.

And I'm not going to make this long winded either.

When taken into context with "you might as well lock the thread now" I read his comments as abuse.

Tbh, I think Jank probably didn't get the meaning of my reply and fired at me straight from the hip and now regrets it.

Too late, he know's the rules. He and now everyone else wishing to use the forum knows the rules will be applied regarding name calling.

Thats my final word on it. For me, the ban stands.

If a higher Mod wants to over turn it, or reduce it - go ahead.

I've laid down my marker, I'm ban someone for personal abuse/name calling - no matter how vailed.

.

Daysha · 18-01-2009 8:03pm

julep wrote: »

You know quite well that is not what he is saying.

Reading back, I can see how it can be interpreted both ways, but I still don't think it's a viable excuse for keeping the ban in place.

EKRIUQ · 18-01-2009 8:20pm

From reading the thread Jank didn't try to abuse anyone, asked a valid question got a stupid answer and replied accordingly. He was replying to the post not the poster.

I don't think because he was replying to a mod he should have to change his response but obviously now any poster who responds to a mod there better watch out for a ban.

Mairt wrote:

I don't really care for what you think tbh.

He and now everyone else wishing to use the forum knows the rules will be applied regarding name calling.

Thats my final word on it. For me, the ban stands.

Sums it up really(Now am I attacking the post or the poster?)

Hagar · 18-01-2009 8:25pm

The truth is the op was trying to call Mairt a meathead, trying to hide behind semantics by saying something like "I wasn't calling you a meathead I just saying you post like a meathead" doesn't wash in the Military Forum. We have a military ethos there, we don't play word games. He stepped over the line.

javaboy · 18-01-2009 8:26pm

EKRIUQ wrote: »

From reading the thread Jank didn't try to abuse anyone, asked a valid question got a stupid answer and replied accordingly. He was replying to the post not the poster.

He mightn't have intended it as abuse but that's how it came out. Plenty of people use the attack the post not the poster thing as a loophole. The way I read "typical meathead post" is that that the post is typical of a meathead. If the post itself was being called meatheaded then that would be slightly different but that's not what he said. Besides a post being meatheaded wouldn't make much sense.

I don't think because he was replying to a mod he should have to change his response but obviously now any poster who responds to a mod there better watch out for a ban.

What makes you think the recipient being a mod had anything to do with the banning?

Dades · 18-01-2009 8:26pm

EKRIUQ wrote: »

From reading the thread Jank didn't try to abuse anyone, asked a valid question got a stupid answer and replied accordingly. He was replying to the post not the poster.

Au contraire, it looks to me like it was a good response, which in an epic FAIL the OP completely misinterpreted.

And a bit of wordplay doesn't disguise the fact that he then called the responder a meathead.

If the insult didn't deserve the ban, the failure to understand the post did, imo.

Sully · 18-01-2009 8:31pm

The way I saw it was that the user was given a bit of a smart arsed response and gave back one resulting in a ban. Flamebait is how I would see it from the posts in question. Dont think a ban was deserved considering the abuse was so so small. Its debatable but so small id be inclined to leave it with a warning. But, the mod prefers to take it up a level and if thats not questionable then I guess thats how the site is to be run in future. Abuse of any kind, even if its so small, is a no-no. Not sure I agree with it tho as it will just turn people away and get more people complaining.

With regards to this thread which should probably have been in Help Desk, I didnt like the whole "I couldnt care what you think" reply. Isnt that the type of attitude that got the OP banned? Would have expected a more civil response considering a poster was banned for personal abuse.

GuanYin · 18-01-2009 8:31pm

Meathead response implied that the person responding is a meathead, so it's an insult/abuse.

I can see this both ways, it wasn't hugely insulting and you were agrieved, which I'd usually take into account but then again I'd probably give you a week ban too if you insulted me.

You could have simply said "that wasn't very helpful".

I just don't see why people feel the need to throw namecalling into posts at every opportunity.

Hagar wrote: »

Call a Soccer mod/PI mod/Politics mod a meathead and come back and let me know how you got on. Infracted? I don't think so..

Just be thankful we're not the mods with guns

6th · 18-01-2009 8:33pm

Nice bit of bannage there Mairt well done.

IRLConor · 18-01-2009 8:49pm

GuanYin wrote: »

Just be thankful we're not the mods with guns

But we're so nice! Reasonable too.

GuanYin · 18-01-2009 8:56pm

IRLConor wrote: »

But we're so nice! Reasonable too.

Well I meant the military mods, but now I know we have a shooting forum

Yet another "Banned" thread

Comments