Banned from the ladies lounge

Nevyn

Firstly when to Cat mods ban from forums which they do not mod unless it is a clear cut case of spam or house keeping? Esp as there are forum mods around and online?

This is not the first time the REC Catmod has done this.

Secondly I did not get a chance to explain why I posted what I did as I was banned. I think the ban is unfair.

This was the reply which I was cut off from giving which explains my actions.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

There was no need for that so I fail to see why you brought it up.

I brought it up cos people seem to think this site is like a chat room it's not.
People remember such threads and posts and they are all held in goggles archives. Ladies people will judge you on what you post and if you have a lot of information about yourself so easily available then they can pour over it all and either reject you at that stage or start seriously staling you.

There is a lot to be said for the stay safe guide in the the clearasil forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055436777

If you don't people commenting in information which you make publicly available in your signatures then don't put it there. I feel this was a knee jerk ban by the cat mod after a post reported by another mod who didn't like what I had to say in one of his threads.

Nevyn

Also can two things be clarified about the banning message I got

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Hi Thaedydal,

You have been banned from The Ladies Lounge for the following duration:

14 Day(s)

for the following reason:

Shocking way to act towards another user.

Providing your ban is not permanent, it will be lifted automatically after 14 Day(s). You will get an automatic message informing you that the ban is lifted. If you do not receive this message after the alloted time, please PM a moderator to clarify.
Also, please be aware that an abusive response to this automated message may result in an extension of your ban, or in extreme cases, being banned from the entire site.

Thanks,

Forum Moderator.

can the reason

Shocking way to act towards another user.

Be clarified in terms of the ladies lounge charter please, preferably by one of the ladies lounge mods.

and secondly can the positions of Cats mods be clarified, as either a mod of all the forums in the Cat or not as the ban message seems to suggest they are.

BuffyBot

Having had a dig around to find the post in question, I do think that a) you come across badly in it and b) it probably should have been done by PM.

Someone with your boards.ie experience surely should have realised how it might come across, and while the ban is tough, it probably reflects the "should have known better" factor. While the information was out there, it wasn't your place to collate it and post it up like that.

Now, with regard to the CMod question: they've always had a certain amount of "stomp" power to take action on something that needs actioning quickly. I've sent AlmightyCushion a message, and I'm sure he'll discuss it with TLL mods in due course. I'll await their verdict before commenting more

Nevyn

BuffyBot wrote: »

Having had a dig around to find the post in question, I do think that a) you come across badly in it and b) it probably should have been done by PM.

Acknowledged.

BuffyBot wrote: »

Someone with your boards.ie experience surely should have realised how it might come across, and while the ban is tough, it probably reflects the "should have known better" factor.

So I am not being treated then just as a poster.

BuffyBot wrote: »

While the information was out there, it wasn't your place to collate it and post it up like that.

Well hopefully someone will be able to point out to me how doing that breaches the forum and / or site rules. All of the info is there via her sig.

BuffyBot wrote: »

Now, with regard to the CMod question: they've always had a certain amount of "stomp" power to take action on something that needs actioning quickly. I've sent AlmightyCushion a message, and I'm sure he'll discuss it with TLL mods in due course. I'll await their verdict before commenting more

Thank you.

BuffyBot

So I am not being treated then just as a poster.

Yes, but a poster with almost 7 years of experience under her belt

Nevyn

AlmightyCushion wrote:

There are much better ways to inform these people to be wary about the information they post up about themselves

I was about to explain but you cut me off.

AlmightyCushion wrote:

than taking a dig at them over a deleted thread and then referring to them as the lowest common denominator.

She is the lowest common denominator in all her communications with other people, that was not an insult, but you seem to have read it as that. It was a factual statement.

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Where in your post did you warn her about anything? You used the fact she posts links to her social networking sites to take a dig at her.

I was having a discussion, heavens forbid the ladies lounge forum has threads with pointed discussions in them
and about what people put in thier sigs and how they put themselves out there to other people.

Did I not use enough smiles and should I have put *HUGZ* at the end of the post?
I do not see a rule in the charter stating I have to be nice.

Nevyn

BuffyBot wrote: »

Yes, but a poster with almost 7 years of experience under her belt

And for a lot of those years that style of posting was just fine.
Seems I am going to have to get an alt account :mad:

Beruthiel

I can't find the comment you were banned for Thaed.
Can you post a link?

Nevyn

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60438278

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60438278&postcount=300

Beruthiel

Thaed

I have given Wibbs and g'em access to this forum so they can explain the reason for the ban.

g'em

My first visit to Help Desk...

*takes a moment to look around*

tLL is, much like any other forum, run with its own set of nuances, particulars and peculiarities which may not be immediately apparent to someone who does not Moderate the forum on a daily basis. As fantastic as AC is as Rec Mod we would greatly appreciate it if the Moderating of tLL was left to us - I know that stuff can kick off at night when us daywalkers tend not to be around, but just lock n' go and we'll deal with it in due course

On a personal Moderating note can I just say that the behaviour of some people was absolutely abysmal on that thread and the absolute disregard of TWO warning of Wibbs' was nothing short of disrespectful, especially from those who know how difficult Moderating a forum can be.

Thaed. Ye big eejit. :rolleyes:

Here's how it looks from the 'outside':

Your second post on the thread was:

Thaedydal wrote:

liah wrote:

Pfft. I'm a lady. I get the pms. I don't send them!

Your loss or going by some of your recent posts a lot of lads gain

i.e. an unprovoked dig at another poster that came out of nowhere. Regardless of the smiley at the end, it was a bitchy thing to say. That may not have been your intention (and knowing you as I do, I'm almost certain it wasn't) that's just how it reads.

liah understandably responded and you proceeded to post her contact details which, to someone who doesn't know you from Adam, can seem like quite awful and even threatening behaviour.

I understand the message you were trying to send her, but there are much, much better ways to do so. You could have PM'd her, or PM'd us or you could have not made the pointed remark in the first place.

As for the "why" you were banned, the Charter clearly states that tLL is a 'safe' forum for women to post. You singled a poster out on-thread and made her unnecessarily uncomfortable, and that contravenes the Charter. However, 14 days is ott in my eyes, and I'll reduce it to 5.

Thaedydal wrote: »

She is the lowest common denominator in all her communications with other people, that was not an insult, but you seem to have read it as that. It was a factual statement.

If someone won a comeptition for being ugliest person in the Universe I still wouldn't call them ugly to their face. Fact it may be, but as cognicent beings we have the intellect to know when fact need not be typed into an intarweb database to be read by gazillions.

Thaedydal wrote:

I do not see a rule in the charter stating I have to be nice.

Ah now Thaed, come off it, common courtesy and respect towards your fellow posters is an unwritten rule across boards.ie. You know as well as I do that your posts can be easily misinterpreted, even when you have the best intentions in the world behind them.

Wibbs

BuffyBot wrote: »

Having had a dig around to find the post in question, I do think that a) you come across badly in it and b) it probably should have been done by PM.

Someone with your boards.ie experience surely should have realised how it might come across, and while the ban is tough, it probably reflects the "should have known better" factor. While the information was out there, it wasn't your place to collate it and post it up like that.

That would be largely my take on it.

Yes I agree people need to be safe online. Damn straight, but it could defo have been put across in a different less provoking way.

You started off with this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60438122&postcount=297 which raised an issue on a deleted thread which was deleted for good reason and it also came across as stirring. It would also be seen as pretty off topic. I know the irony considering the rest of the thread...

Then you post the collated contact details which would hardly be making a good case for internet privacy. PM yes, open post no. Now her details are all there in a handy easy to read way. Give the point you were apparently making it looks threatening to boot. Then what could easily be construed as a dig about "lowest common denominators" towards the poster. Common denominators I could see, but adding lowest takes it in a different direction.

Now you say you were trying to make a specific point and were cut off by AlmightyCushion, but why wasn't that point made in the original post?

As for the length of the ban personally I would have put it at a week. I think the fortnight is excessive.

Wibbs

PS I'm going to delete the post in question and all refs to it.

Beruthiel

g'em wrote: »

the Charter clearly states that tLL is a 'safe' forum for women to post.

I feel compelled to point out the irony of being safe on the internet with 10 different ways to stalker you in your sig.

I am glad to see the ban reduced.
14 days was ridiculous for a comment I could possibly have made myself.

Hence the reason why I have banned myself from posting in that forum. It makes me despair for womankind.
Maybe you should do the same Thaed, that place is bad for the blood pressure.

g'em

Beruthiel wrote:

Hence the reason why I have banned myself from posting in that forum. It makes me despair for womankind.
Maybe you should do the same Thaed, that place is bad for the blood pressure.

Moderating Fitness with all its testosterone-fulled manliness tends to balance out my over-exposure to oestrogen in tLL. I fear for the day I mis-quote myself and start talking about the effect of PMS on handbag colour choices in the middle of a hardcore squat thread...

Wibbs

Beruthiel wrote: »

I feel compelled to point out the irony of being safe on the internet with 10 different ways to stalker you in your sig.

Oh I agree, but it's the manner in which this was pointed out, the impression that was given and the collation of the details inc email addresses that is the issue. Hence the ban.

I am glad to see the ban reduced.
14 days was ridiculous for a comment I could possibly have made myself.

I agree there too, but I would still feel the ban justified in itself and TBH I would have warned/infracted/banned anyone for something like that.

Beruthiel

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but it's the manner in which this was pointed out, the impression that was given and the collation of the details inc email addresses that is the issue.

Was that info not freely available to anyone who went looking?
Was that not the point being made?

I agree there too, but I would still feel the ban justified in itself and TBH I would have warned/infracted/banned anyone for something like that.

Infraction sure.
14 day ban. No way.

Wibbs

Beruthiel wrote: »

Was that info not freely available to anyone who went looking?

Yes but that's not the point. The point is how it was made and in the context. Yes one could go looking, but it didn't need to be gathered up and stuck in one thread for all and sundry. I'm sure I have the makings of explosives in my household cleaners etc, putting them together would be the issue. mad analogy I grant you but not far off. Put it another way, I'm sure someone with the will could find out some details of me and you or others if they looked hard enough. Would you be happy in those details being put together in a single post? What about searching through all your posts(which are freely available) and using them as a key for a windup? Nevermind with what appeared to be stirring intent.

Yes the poster has put stuff up in her sig that is freely available. OK cool, but would a comment by someone else on their say facebook page be also fair game to put up? What about if someone knows my name, goes searching for it and posts details on a thread? Yes it's freely available too, but it would be the intent not the subject matter and the intent was nowhere clear.

Was that not the point being made?

That is the stated point after the fact, yes, but going on the leadup to the offending post and the post itself that was anything but clear and was never put like that in obvious terms. Simple as.

The first shot in the salvo;

Thaedydal wrote:

Your loss or going by some of your recent posts a lot of lads gain

OK the could be taken any which way, but best case gentle ribbing and as a one off grand. We're not hand holding here, we are or should be dealing with adults. Though it is referring to a deleted thread that was clearly deleted for a reason and I didn't get the memo that said that was ok? Maybe I'm way off on that.

Then the second shot across the bows;

Thaedydal wrote:

Well I know I would not consider dating someone who gets into public slinging matches with their exs on a public forum after being bitching about them.

The ante is upped a a fair bit more. Again referring directly to a deleted thread and hardly complimentary and easily construed as antagonistic. OK so maybe an on thread warning should have gone in there.

The we get to the offending post for which the ban happened. I've deleted it as one of the reasons were the details given, but have a look at it yourself again and explain to me how anyone, impartially as a complete outsider would take that as some sort of a public service announcement on the dangers of web privacy. Eh no. Just no. The reported post list was long enough as were the thanks for the opposite angle. That was the perception.

Infraction sure.
14 day ban. No way.

I think the 5 day ban is about right. If I had been on there(more to the point if my email was working:mad: and had seen the reported posts), I'll be honest, knowing Thaed as a bloody good poster and asset to this site(one of the biggest IMHO and has been personally been a helluva help to me, off and on the forum), if I had seen it I would have likely deleted it and PM'd her. So I put my hands up and say I would probably have given her preferential treatment to some degree. I would and have done similar to others I respect, both mod and user. Mea culpa

I didn't, so it stood and I think AC made the right call in the circumstances(though locking and flagging the thread for the LL mods would have been better), even if I fully agree a fortnight was too long.

PS making comments about any particular forum and it's users and how they make you despair and suggesting others should avoid, particularly a helpdesk thread starter is hardly on in my humble. Not on a helpdesk thread. Hardly adds to the feeling of impartiality.

Beruthiel

Jaysus Wibbs. You do talk some amount of waffle.

Yes, I concur that Thaed could have found a better way of putting it across.

But I also think if you advertise your whole life in your sig, it's open season on those duckies buddy.

Nevyn

All of the information was already listed and gathered up by the person in one place I didn't have to go looking or collating.
All I had to do was click here http://www.xiiad.net/ which is in her sig.

Wibbs

Beruthiel wrote: »

Jaysus Wibbs. You do talk some amount of waffle.

I don't see how that was a helpful addition to the thread, but that's your humble so fire away. My humble is that if this was another poster, a newbie say, you would be less quick to support so strongly. I would be too TBH, we all would, but there it is.

Yes, I concur that Thaed could have found a better way of putting it across.

I agree and add that the intention was not clear. At all.

But I also think if you advertise your whole life in your sig, it's open season on those duckies buddy.

OK duly noted and cool. for future ref.

Thaedydal wrote:

All of the information was already listed and gathered up by the person in one place I didn't have to go looking or collating.
All I had to do was click here http://www.xiiad.net/ which is in her sig.

Cool again and cheers for the heads up. I didn't click that. My issue on top of the listing is the intent behind it. It looked like sniping for snipings sake(and I think most would think pretty similar). I've explained why above in the waffle.

Beruthiel

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't see how that was a helpful addition to the thread

I was actually going to add the smiley at the time, but didn't think you needed it.

My humble is that if this was another poster, a newbie say, you would be less quick to support so strongly. I would be too TBH, we all would, but there it is.

It all depends on the forum in fairness. Or whither I actually agree with the point being made.

Nevyn

I was banned before I got to explain and the poster in question pmed me after I ws banned and I linked her to the reasons I put in my first post here and she was fine with it, said she got my point and thanked me for my concern.

Ok I know I can at times come across as prickly ( I don't mean to ) but as much as you seem to think wibbs that my online persona is causing a bias I think that bias started with the reporting of the post and with how heavily the cat mod reacted.

I am sure that Beruthiel or any of the other admins would have no problem kicking my arse if needed, she certainly
didn't have any bias in the last helpdesk thread I had about being banned.

Wibbs

Cool and the gang so we'll leave it at that then. Alls well and all that.:)

Beruthiel

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am sure that Beruthiel or any of the other admins would have no problem kicking my arse if needed, she certainly
didn't have any bias in the last helpdesk thread I had about being banned.

Last time you posted in this forum, I agreed with the ban.

This time I didn't agree with the length of it.
As I pointed out earlier, you did deserve a slap on the wrist, for as you said, coming across as prickly.
I just thought 14 days was OTT.

Anyways, I think we can let this go now, ya?

Nevyn

Ok I accept the 5 day ban, thanks to the ladies lounge mods g'em and wibbs for reviewing and to Beruthiel for mediating.