Personal Issues Infraction.

Boston

Hello.
I received an infraction from Zaph for this:

Original Post:
[post]60345472[/post]

I wasn't saying he was Bi. The vast majority of straight men will be curious about homosexuality at some point in their life. Most won't "Do" anything but rather they'll shrug it off and eventually not care, some will pick the brains of their gay friends (or chat on-line if they have none), download abit of gay porn maybe or kiss anther guy. A few may even sleep with another man. The fact remains that most of these guys will be straight.

As an aside, he'd probably thought you'd be more comfortable with him talking to Gay guys rather then possibly straight women about your relationship, i.e. you wouldn't see them as a threat.

Reason: Being Naughty

---

You were told to stop by Silverfish and yet you repeated your post almost word for word.

---

I sent the following to the moderator yesterday;

Silverfish most certainly did not request that I "desist from that line of discussion". Her exact words where "this is the end of it.". As in 1) being off-topic and 2) snyping Liam. As my post was neither off topic nor directed at Liam I feel it was perfectly valid. Furthermore the original poster was under a mistaken impression regarding my first post, Hence I reposted it to highlight that I never once suggested he was gay / bi. If advice is contentious does that mean it can't be given? I knew Liam disagreed, I didn't care, the advice wasn't directed at him and I felt over the course of the "argument" what I had orginally said was distorted, hence the OP's confusion. If Silverfish wished me to stop my line of discussion with the OP then she should have been clearer with her warning.

I look forward to your response.

Boston.

As of yet I have not received a response from the moderator. The crux of my argument is that I do not believe silverfish meant that I could no longer put forward my opinion. If she that was the case* then I feel it wasn't made clear enough by her short message.

*As I understand it, contentious advice is allowed on PI. If someone disagrees with it, fine, they are free to do so. I fail to see why I should drop a line of discussion which is A) on topic and non-abusive simply because one user (who wasn't the op) took issue with it. I think that's a poor way to run a forum.

I look forward to having this issue resolved.

Boston.

BuffyBot

I think Silverfish's point came across reading that thread: to me it said Boston and Liam Byrne, stop the bickering, now. You came back with a very similar line of attack again which threathened to drag the thread off into a personal spat again.

As infractions are really nothing more than a "naughty boy, consider your wrists slapped" measure rather than anything with real gravity, I don't think it was out of line to use it in this case.

Boston

Yes I took her message to indicate that. The OP indicated that she had interpreted my comments in a certain way. I reiterated them to illustrate that I was making no assertion wrt his sexuality. I don't think I should be punished because a comment I made may take a thread off topic.

Regardless of the severity of the punishment I feel
1) That Zaph miss interpreted Silverfishes warning or at the very lease retroactively explained upon it to include my actions. This is simply unfair.
2) Even if Silverfish did mean to silence my view, I don't feel it's right to do so on an open discussion forum. More then a dozen other people offered advice of that thread and only one person took objection to mine. How is it fair that I should be blocked because one user disagree with me?

I know it's only an infraction and frankly that attitude is one of the reasons I was against the infraction feature. Zaph wouldn't have banned me as casually as he infracted me. He probably also wouldn't have ignored my Pm.

BuffyBot

Boston wrote: »

Yes I took her message to indicate that. The OP indicated that she had interpreted my comments in a certain way. I reiterated them to illustrate that I was making no assertion wrt his sexuality. I don't think I should be punished because a comment I made may take a thread off topic.

In fairness I think it's a little more than "may" in this case. A line was drawn, and you put a hoof (however dainty) over it.

Regardless of the severity of the punishment I feel
1) That Zaph miss interpreted Silverfishes warning or at the very lease retroactively explained upon it to include my actions. This is simply unfair.

Again, I don't think so. I feel the message was pretty clear.

2) Even if Silverfish did mean to silence my view, I don't feel it's right to do so on an open discussion forum. More then a dozen other people offered advice of that thread and only one person took objection to mine. How is it fair that I should be blocked because one user disagree with me?

You expressed your view, and it remains on the thread. However there comes a stage where a point becomes laboured.

I know it's only an infraction and frankly that attitude is one of the reasons I was against the infraction feature. Zaph wouldn't have banned me as casually as he infracted me. He probably also wouldn't have ignored my Pm.

Well a discussion on the relative merits of the infraction aside, Zaph may or may not have replied for a multitude of reasons. To be honest, I'd imagine because there isn't an awful lot to add to the discussion.

Boston

I'm going to take Zaphs Silence to indicate he recognised the validity of my arguments and has skulled away in wrongful shame for the reprehensible admonition he leveled against my character. Hang not your head in abasement dear friend Zaph, but rather lets us both admit we've made mistakes and done wrong in our youthful exuberance. Meet me at 23oo hours under the clock tower at the next full moon if you accept...

Gordon

Eek, you mean the moon, as in, show us 'yer moon, no please Boston, this is a family site as you know.

Zaph didn't have access to this forum afais, I've opened access now.

Zaph

Apologies for not responding Boston, but my silence has nothing to do with ignoring your PM and more to do with having a life outside of Boards. Unlike many people I don't have access in work and I've been out most of the rest of the time since.

As for the infraction itself, I agree, I wouldn't have banned you for what you said, but nor did I infract you casually. There was a clear instruction from Silverfish to yourself and Liam Byrne to give it a rest and yet your very next post you came back with exactly the same point that the pair of you had started arguing over. That's not exactly putting an end to things in my view. I'm sorry if you feel that the infraction was harsh, but imo it was warranted.

Boston

Zaph wrote: »

Apologies for not responding Boston, but my silence has nothing to do with ignoring your PM and more to do with having a life outside of Boards. Unlike many people I don't have access in work and I've been out most of the rest of the time since.

I accepted this and I held off posting this thread until I saw that you had been active on boards and not replied. I did not rush to the Helpdesk straight away.

Zaph wrote: »

As for the infraction itself, I agree, I wouldn't have banned you for what you said, but nor did I infract you casually. There was a clear instruction from Silverfish to yourself and Liam Byrne to give it a rest and yet your very next post you came back with exactly the same point that the pair of you had started arguing over. That's not exactly putting an end to things in my view. I'm sorry if you feel that the infraction was harsh, but imo it was warranted.

That ignores the post by the OP directed as a response to me.

Zaph

Boston wrote: »

That ignores the post by the OP directed as a response to me.

This is the portion of that post that the OP replied to:

Boston wrote: »

As an aside, he'd probably thought you'd be more comfortable with him talking to Gay guys rather then possibly straight women about your relationship, i.e. you wouldn't see them as a threat.

Had that been the entire post then there wouldn't have been an issue, however the first part of that post repeated the post that started things off with Liam Byrne, and that's where the problem arose.

Boston

Zaph wrote: »

This is the portion of that post that the OP replied to:



Had that been the entire post then there wouldn't have been an issue, however the first part of that post repeated the post that started things off with Liam Byrne, and that's where the problem arose.

The OP replied before that post and after the warning. I'm starting to get the impression you didn't read the thread.

Zaph

I read the thread, here's how it breaks down:

- You made a claim on the thread
- Liam Byrne challenged the validity of the statement
- Cue several posts back and forward between the two of you discussing the statement, none of which were particularly relevant to the OP
- Silverfish instructed the pair of you to stop
- Your next post repeated the original statement that started the discussion between yourself and Liam Byrne in the first place

Given that both of you were instructed to stop bickering by a mod of the forum and yet you re-posted the statement that started things in the first place, what did you really expect? As I already said, it wasn't worthy of a ban, but I felt it was necessary to avoid a repeat of the earlier squabbling.

Now I know you don't agree with me on this, but it has been reviewed by an Admin who doesn't believe I was out of order. Had BuffyBot stated that I was, I would have had no hesitation in requesting a reversal of the infraction and apologised unreservedly. However I feel I have explained myself clearly and I don't intend to continue doing so for the full 10 days that the infraction is valid.

Boston

See this post:

polly_wolly wrote: »

No I honestly don't think he is bi. When he explained why he did it, it kind of made sense. He's a typical guy with typical male friends. Ive had some personal illness issues and it's freaked him out a bit. He didn't want to tell his friends because they wouldn't be the most sensitive or good for advice. He said if his friends came to him for advice on a serious matter he'd probably be rubbish too- he's not the sensitive type! So he wanted to talk to someone who might guide him without laughing it off.
As I said he has no gay tendancies and is sex mad! So it makes sense after all:)

See my reply to it:

Boston wrote: »

I wasn't saying he was Bi. The vast majority of straight men will be curious about homosexuality at some point in their life. Most won't "Do" anything but rather they'll shrug it off and eventually not care, some will pick the brains of their gay friends (or chat on-line if they have none), download abit of gay porn maybe or kiss anther guy. A few may even sleep with another man. The fact remains that most of these guys will be straight.

As an aside, he'd probably thought you'd be more comfortable with him talking to Gay guys rather then possibly straight women about your relationship, i.e. you wouldn't see them as a threat.

You're ignoring the fact the OP made another post and that my comment was directly relevant to that post.

Boston

No reply in days. I think that makes me officially the winrar.