New poster swiftly banned

K'NEDZ

I have been permanently banned from the After Hours forum for trolling, after about 15 posts. I PMed the mod who banned me to ask why, as I felt that my posts were in keeping with the spirit of the thread I had posted in. In short, they were silly posts in a silly thread, but were not abusive, hurtful, libellous, or offensive. He said he would review the ban, but has not lifted it, so I can only assume it is going to stick. Here is the thread in question - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055471620 It is ostensibly about a theory that certain fat people are infected with a virus, which at some point might be cured, maybe with a pill. Out of the 90 or so posts, about three quarters are offtopic - ranging from downright abuse of fat people and some posts about bullying, to nonsense posts about eating sh*t, and sex with monkeys.

My offending contribution was a tongue in cheek suggestion to monitor the amount you excrete through sweat, urine, feces, blood, semen and so on, and reconcile it to the amount of food and drink you consume. If the latter exceeds the former you will know that you are going to gain weight, and can make the necessary adjustments. I had thought it was such an obviously ridiculous idea that nobody could take it seriously. How is anyone supposed to measure the amount that they piss, or sweat, or the volume of their menstrual fluid?? I offered a silly theory to make the point that in the area of diet and weight loss there is a lot of quackery, charlatanism, and silly theories. But it went over someone's head.

A poster with a huge post count came along and took it seriously and started arguing against it as if I had come out with a serious scientific challenge. I bantered with him and gave more and more ridiculous replies, but he still kept taking it seriously. So I got banned for trolling. Now I would understand this ban if I had derailed a serious thread in the nutrition forum or something, but it was a facetious thread to begin with. If anyone was trolling it was the guy who went on a crusade against unsound nutrition theory, and turned a silly, lighthearted thread into an argument.

People have opinions about politics, the economy, the health service, the justice system, how to run various businesses and companies, sport, dating, etc., etc. If they are free to express their opinions, then others should be free to challenge them, and they should be free to respond to that challenge - in short, debate should be allowed, no matter how uninformed it might be. If the foregoing is true, then it should be permissable to say something that is likely to spark a debate.

So where is the line between provoking debate and trolling? It is too subjective to define. Is someone trolling, or just stupid? Are they provoking debate to make a point, or in the hope of starting a flame war? It can be impossible to say. So an objective standard is required, which, according the the charter I read before posting, is to avoid personal abuse or legally risky material.

But judging by my experience, trolling on this site appears to be defined as saying something that a poster with a large post count disagrees with. I posted about 15 times and received a permanent ban! Not a temporary ban, a warning, a word of advice, or a pointer in the direction of certain guidelines. Would any other organisation, club or society treat a new member like this? In the case of a major transgression, such as stealing, or assault, or vandalism, yes, but not for parking in the wrong spot, or wearing the wrong tie. So I can only conclude that my posts were a major transgression in the eyes of the mod who banned me.

I am aware that his attention must have been drawn to the thread by someone reporting me. So what happened is that someone with a large post count missed the point of a post and turned a silly thread into an argument. He reported the post that he didn't agree with, and got a new poster thrown out. His influence will no doubt continue to rise along with his post count, and he will continue to get people thrown out who he disagrees with.

Just one question, is this an isolated incident or does this happen a lot on this site?

I also presume that someone is going to tell me, If you don't like it, go somewhere else. So where would be a better site to go? Why not have a referral policy when you ban people? Somewhere safe for work that is a bit more open to new members, and tolerant of different opinions? Any suggestions?

seamus

So where is the line between provoking debate and trolling?

Here it is:

I bantered with him and gave more and more ridiculous replies, but he still kept taking it seriously.

You've admitted to trolling. What else do you want? Your twaddle about "disagreeing" and "not being listened to" is clearly twaddle because you admitted to trolling at the start of your post and continually posting something which was not your opinion, purely to get a rise out of another poster.

If you have an opinion about something, you're generally very free to post it in the relevant forum on this site. Wasting someone else's time though and disrupting a thread by continually posting replies which are deliberately false and ridiculous, will incur action from a moderator. They do this not because they disagree with you, but to ensure that the site remains readable. If we allowed everyone to take the piss on every thread, boards would be useless and unpopular.

Threads on After Hours are often light-hearted but they are still discussions, not playgrounds for poking other people with sticks.

As for the length of the ban, PM the moderator who banned you to discuss it. That is in fact what you should have done first before posting here. I happened to have 5 minutes free this morning to reply to you.

K'NEDZ

seamus wrote: »

Here it is:

You've admitted to trolling. What else do you want? Your twaddle about "disagreeing" and "not being listened to" is clearly twaddle because you admitted to trolling at the start of your post and continually posting something which was not your opinion, purely to get a rise out of another poster.

If you have an opinion about something, you're generally very free to post it in the relevant forum on this site. Wasting someone else's time though and disrupting a thread by continually posting replies which are deliberately false and ridiculous, will incur action from a moderator. They do this not because they disagree with you, but to ensure that the site remains readable. If we allowed everyone to take the piss on every thread, boards would be useless and unpopular.

Threads on After Hours are often light-hearted but they are still discussions, not playgrounds for poking other people with sticks.

As for the length of the ban, PM the moderator who banned you to discuss it. That is in fact what you should have done first before posting here. I happened to have 5 minutes free this morning to reply to you.

Thanks for your reply. I did PM him before posting here, he said he would review the ban yesterday evening, and I heard nothing more. So I conclude that the ban is going to stick.

I wasn't trying to poke anyone with a stick, or get a rise out of anyone. I had originally made a point indirectly, and thought that my intentions were obvious. When I was taken seriously, I upped the ridiculousness quotient, not in order to irritate anyone but in an attempt to get him to see that I was being tongue in cheek in the first place. I thought this would be more friendly than saying directly: "I was being ironic and you missed the point," which would be snide, and supercilious.

Likewise, I would have thought it possible to make a point obliquely rather than having to state everything flat out, in the present tense, declarative sentences only, Just the facts ma'am, etc.

K'NEDZ

Ok, so I am going to be ignored. I saw that the mod who banned me was viewing this page and thought he might reply, but no.

What I did was trolling by some letter of the law definition and was such a serious offence that there can be no second chances. The following common sense viewpoints do not apply:

• Someone with over 10,000 posts should be able to handle themselves on a message board without calling for the teacher / bouncer
• Someone with over 10,000 posts should know the difference between serious opinion and obvious waffle
• Someone with over 10,000 posts should know better than to start a serious argument in the middle of a thread full of nonsense
• A new member who steps out of line, deliberately or inadvertently, should be taken aside and spoken to rather than immediately banned for life.

The viewpoints that do apply are the following:

• No matter how unqualified you are to hold an opinion, or how misinformed your opinion is, if you are sincere, it is ok.
• If you state an opinion that you don't necessarily hold, for the purpose of making a point, or starting a debate, you are a troll
• Higher standards of behaviour are expected of new members than longstanding ones.
• At the moment, this is a popular site in Ireland so you don't need to bother about attracting or retaining new members.

This is not a ban appeal, just feedback, which is likely to be ignored by this smug, self-satisfied, little forum.

seamus

K'NEDZ wrote: »

Ok, so I am going to be ignored.

I thought you were done. I gather from your last post that there was nothing further to add.

I saw that the mod who banned me was viewing this page and thought he might reply, but no.

He doesn't have access to reply here.

What I did was trolling by some letter of the law definition and was such a serious offence that there can be no second chances.

Your ban is going to be reduced. Probably by vitue of the fact that you cared enough to question it.

Someone with over 10,000 posts should be able to handle themselves on a message board without calling for the teacher / bouncer

Irrelevant. We try to treat all users equally as best we can. If you would be banned for trolling someone with 10 posts, then you'll equally be banned for trolling someone with 10,000 posts. In any case, trolling rarely just targets one person. It's usually the troller versus about 10 others, which disrupts the whole thread.

[*]Someone with over 10,000 posts should know the difference between serious opinion and obvious waffle

Because someone with a lot of posts is psychic, right? Your post didn't look like a pisstake. I read it. The views you expressed were far less extreme than some of the serious stuff that has had to be refuted on boards over the years.

Someone with over 10,000 posts should know better than to start a serious argument in the middle of a thread full of nonsense

The thread looked light-hearted until you posted, but it wasn't nonsensical.

A new member who steps out of line, deliberately or inadvertently, should be taken aside and spoken to rather than immediately banned for life.

There were doubts over your "newness". There still are. But like everyone else, you've been given the benefit of the doubt.

No matter how unqualified you are to hold an opinion, or how misinformed your opinion is, if you are sincere, it is ok.

In general, yes. You are free to post your honest opinion, provided that you're willing to hear others' opinion too.

If you state an opinion that you don't necessarily hold, for the purpose of making a point, or starting a debate, you are a troll

Nope. Trolling is deliberately posting something purely for the purposes of annoying other members. This is what you did.

Higher standards of behaviour are expected of new members than longstanding ones.

I don't see where you're getting that from. Examples?

At the moment, this is a popular site in Ireland so you don't need to bother about attracting or retaining new members.

If that was the case, we'd close the theoretical doors and just keep it for ourselves. Boards signs up roughly 200 people per day, which means that since you joined, about 9,000 others have too. Most of them don't take the piss on the personal issues forum because they think it's great craic, or try to annoy posters on busy forums. New members who do that are not the type of new members that we want.

Funny that you're not contesting your ban from Personal Issues, despite the fact that it too was obviously a joke.

K'NEDZ

seamus wrote: »

He doesn't have access to reply here

I didn't know that.

seamus wrote: »

Your ban is going to be reduced. Probably by vitue of the fact that you cared enough to question it.

Very gracious of whoever took this decision.

seamus wrote: »

There were doubts over your "newness". There still are. But like everyone else, you've been given the benefit of the doubt.

I am not Gearoid, whoever he might be.

seamus wrote: »

Trolling is deliberately posting something purely for the purposes of annoying other members. This is what you did.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Not always. A member got annoyed, that doesn't mean that this was my intention. Nor does it mean that he should have gotten annoyed.

seamus wrote: »

I don't see where you're getting that from. Examples?

I was the only new person posting in that thread, but was the only one banned (apart from a guy who called someone else a fat bastard). Other people expressed more controversial and offensive opinions than I did.

seamus wrote: »

If that was the case, we'd close the theoretical doors and just keep it for ourselves. Boards signs up roughly 200 people per day, which means that since you joined, about 9,000 others have too. Most of them don't take the piss on the personal issues forum because they think it's great craic, or try to annoy posters on busy forums. New members who do that are not the type of new members that we want.

Fair enough.

seamus wrote: »

Funny that you're not contesting your ban from Personal Issues, despite the fact that it too was obviously a joke.

I didn't really check out that forum before posting there and only saw after being banned that my post was not appropriate. Not sure if a permanent ban was justified, but I don't really have anything to share with that forum, either an issue of my own, or advice for someone else, so I'm happy for us all to go our separate ways.

I still think it would be an idea for you guys to recommend somewhere more suitable for the people you ban to go to. Just an idea though.

seamus

Not always. A member got annoyed, that doesn't mean that this was my intention.

I beg to differ:

I bantered with him and gave more and more ridiculous replies

Nor does it mean that he should have gotten annoyed.

Well, he didn't actually get annoyed from what I can see. But he was somewhat exasperated by your insistence in persisting with your statement.

I still think it would be an idea for you guys to recommend somewhere more suitable for the people you ban to go to. Just an idea though.

I don't see why. It's not a public service. We have better things to be doing than researching other forums for the benefit of people who can't control themselves here. Anyone who's banned probably knows how to use google. There are thousands of forums available from there.

K'NEDZ

I thought it might have been beneficial for you to have some kind of referral service going, and also that it might be better than having people returning and continuing to harrass this site. But it's not really any of my business.

Thanks for your replies and civility.