Infraction for non-existent (at the time) warning ?

Liam Byrne

I was reading a thread in Politics and hit reply, typed a message, and hit post.

The page then reloaded as it does, showing the thread.

I then saw that Sceptre had typed a warning that appeared just above mine - i.e. we must have been typing simultaneously; and this is the key point : there was no warning in the thread when I had started to reply

So - immediately having seen that, I hit edit so that I could delete the text of my reply - but I couldn't save the changes because the post had been deleted by the mod.

And I then received an infraction.

This constitutes a direct infraction with no warning - because the warning hadn't existed at the time I replied.

Surely this is OTT ?

I've explained the above to the mod in question, but they're not interested, saying the warning was "big and bold" - this is ridiculous, because the warning didn't exist!!!!!

The following is the text of the PM that I sent the mod in question, and their replies; initially they said they understood what I said, and then they contradicted this by saying that the warning existed!

Liam Byrne wrote:

OK, now I'm confused - I thought you said that you understood ????

The warning was NOT present on the thread before I posted!

sceptre wrote:

You're getting an infraction for not obeying a warning which was present on the thread before you posted.

Feel free to place it on the Help Desk, it's what it's for. I've advised anyone else on either side with a similar objection of this. This hijacking of threads that aren't about Sinn Fein to make them about Sinn Fein will stop. There have been enough warnings about that in the past that you can't but be aware of them.

It's thread-spoiling plain and simple. Other people have to use the forum that don't want to read pages on Sinn Fein in the middle of an otherwise rational discussion. Some day perhaps something will be brought into one of these arguments but to a rational person, it's the same rubbish from both sides every time. And that's not fair on the rest of the membership base.

Feel free to include your complaint and my responses in full in any Help Desk thread you may start.

Liam Byrne wrote:

So basically I'm getting and infraction for not obeying a non-existent warning.

Nice one!

I presume it's pretty clear that this will be going to the help desk ?

I mean, I'll admit - the warning was 100% justfied the way the thread was going. And if there had been on there I would certainly have abided by it.

But a straight infraction without a warning is not.

sceptre wrote:

I understood you perfectly Liam.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Excuse me ? I'm not sure you understood me.

The warning wasn't there at the time that I hit "reply", so saying that it was "nice and bold" or that "I didn't see it" is incorrect....it wasn't there! At All!

sceptre wrote:

I'm not lifting any infractions from the warning onward, the warning was nice and bold even if you didn't see it. As I'm saying to anyone else who got one, it's only one infraction but I'd suggest paying heed to it as this thread hijacking has to stop.

All the relevant (or rather irrelevant) posts have been deleted.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I was just typing a PM apology to you; I was obviously typing at the same time as you. I then tried to edit it and got an Invalid Thread / Post Specified Message.

So may I request that the infraction be lifted, because I certainly hadn't disobeyed any warning, as the warning wasn't there when I started typing.

Thanks
Liam

BuffyBot

Apart from the fact that an infraction is just a warning, having had a look at the post in question and your previous infractions in that forum, you surely can't be telling me that you needed yet another reminder about the standards of posting required by the Politics forum?

Liam Byrne

BuffyBot wrote: »

Apart from the fact that an infraction is just a warning, having had a look at the post in question and your previous infractions in that forum, you surely can't be telling me that you needed yet another reminder about the standards of posting required by the Politics forum?

I remember one or two of the other infractions, and while a few were well off the mark, I'll put my hand up and admit that there have been some judgement slips on my part.

And I'd like to think that as an active poster on that forum, the percentage of infractions and issues versus the amount of posts is extremely low ?

However, all that said, it is not the point; if I'd disobeyed the warning, then fair enough; but the warning was placed there after I hit reply, so my question is whether that's acceptable.

Also : in the interests of fairness and transparency, however, so that it doesn't look like I'm going behind anyone's back, I've since gotten another message from the mod, which arrived after the "Feel free to place it on the Help Desk".

BuffyBot

As an active poster on the forum, you should have a better self-guage of what's acceptable and what isn't, I would hope. A warning, or lack of it, on thread doesn't mean the general rules of the forum can be thrown out the window.

Liam Byrne

BuffyBot wrote: »

As an active poster on the forum, you should have a better self-guage of what's acceptable and what isn't, I would hope. A warning, or lack of it, on thread doesn't mean the general rules of the forum can be thrown out the window.

Yes, I'll admit that I got sucked in by a taunt, ok ? That's not the issue.

And sorry, but replying like that is a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't". My point is that you raised previous infractions as if they were somehow a mitigating factor, when there are very few in terms of overall posts to that forum.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not dismissing any previous "discipline" as completely trivial - and sorry if this seems blunt - I'm not particularly impressed with that being thrown against me and thereby avoiding / not replying to the question.

So again - the question is whether it's acceptable to infract someone who never saw a warning because it wasn't there ?

BuffyBot

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable. Infractions have no pre-requisite of an in-thread warning being posted before they're used.

I might be more sympathetic if you were some new person who stumbled into the situation and didn't know better - but you, by your own admission, are a frequent poster there. You know the rules, you know the standards expected of you. You've crossed the bounds before, so you do know where the line is.

I don't see that it's overly harsh at all.

Liam Byrne

BuffyBot wrote: »

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable. Infractions have no pre-requisite of an in-thread warning being posted before they're used.

I might be more sympathetic if you were some new person who stumbled into the situation and didn't know better - but you, by your own admission, are a frequent poster there. You know the rules, you know the standards expected of you. You've crossed the bounds before, so you do know where the line is.

That would be fair enough in general, except that's not what's given as the reason in the mod's reply:

sceptre wrote: »

You're getting an infraction for not obeying a warning which was present on the thread before you posted.

So if I'd posted something objectionable, and received an infraction saying "Infraction based on the content of your post", then fair enough - no argument.

But the reason you're giving me "You should know better" is not the reason given for the infraction, so therefore it appears you are now imposing your own version of the infraction, rather than judging whether the above is fair. The infraction that I received was NOT based for the content of the post, but for the reason highlighted above.

Sorry, but what you are now saying is the equivalent of being stopped for suspected speeding and then, when you point out that you were actually stopped, being given a parking ticket.

So can I ask that you leave your own opinion of what you'd have done had you seen my post and my history, and go back - for a third time - to my original question (with an added clarification, even though this was implicit in the original question):

Is it acceptable to infract someone who never saw a warning because it wasn't there - for reasons of not obeying the warning ?

BuffyBot

So really, you want to split a hair over the why, rather than the content?

Fair enough, and I'm sure sceptre will acknowledge that the reason he gave may not accurately reflect the situation given the timing.

However, the content was infractible - I'm fine with that. If sceptre wants to reverse your infraction solely on the phraseology and timing issue, he can do so - but he's equally welcome to infract you again for the content - so it would become rather a hollow move.

The point I'm making here is that I'm fine with the infraction. If you want to debate the reason with sceptre, by all means do - but I've no intention of overruling the local mod on this.

Liam Byrne

BuffyBot wrote: »

So really, you want to split a hair over the why, rather than the content?

Fair enough, and I'm sure sceptre will acknowledge that the reason he gave may not accurately reflect the situation given the timing.

However, the content was infractible - I'm fine with that. If sceptre wants to reverse your infraction solely on the phraseology and timing issue, he can do so - but he's equally welcome to infract you again for the content - so it would become rather a hollow move.

The point I'm making here is that I'm fine with the infraction. If you want to debate the reason with sceptre, by all means do - but I've no intention of overruling the local mod on this.

OK, in that case I'm giving up because ...... em, it's a Wednesday :rolleyes:

Like I said above, I've actually discussed this more with sceptre and - to be 100% fair to him - he's been a hell of a lot more reasonable and understanding and (without putting words in his mouth, but based on the tone and content of subsequent messages) would appear to disagree with your "let's find an alternative reason" mentality.

I hadn't realised that that was the purpose of the "help desk".

Basically, sorry I asked. There obviously wasn't any point, and I should have realised this as soon as your first three replies focussed on past indiscretions rather even remotely referencing the actual question being asked.

BuffyBot

The Help Desk isn't here to always agree with you. It would be a bit pointless if it automatically sided with whatever point of view the complainant expressed.

The reason I focussed on your prior record is due to your post:

I then saw that Sceptre had typed a warning that appeared just above mine - i.e. we must have been typing simultaneously; and this is the key point : there was no warning in the thread when I had started to reply

So - immediately having seen that, I hit edit so that I could delete the text of my reply - but I couldn't save the changes because the post had been deleted by the mod.

And I then received an infraction.

This constitutes a direct infraction with no warning - because the warning hadn't existed at the time I replied.

You specifically complained about an infraction being used with no warning, and that no warning was present in the thread when you posted.

The point I was making is that you're both long enough in the tooth (in boards.ie terms) and aware of the rules (given your past indiscretions) that I think you didn't need any warning or emphasis to know what is acceptable or not. You also seem to be under the impression that some kind of warning needs to be present before a infraction can be issued: that is simply not the case.

Liam Byrne

BuffyBot wrote: »

The Help Desk isn't here to always agree with you. It would be a bit pointless if it automatically sided with whatever point of view the complainant expressed.

No argument here. But in actual fact there would have been no complaint had I been infracted for the content of the post, so that's an irrelevant point.

However, you did not referee either the issue or the complaint, and you also appear to be misinterpreting or misrepresenting the reasoning behind the complaint:

BuffyBot wrote: »

You specifically complained about an infraction being used with no warning, and that no warning was present in the thread when you posted.

That's not the complete picture, and you know it; the phrasing of what you said is correct, but my "specific complaint" and taking issue with the fact that there was no warning present in the thread was because the REASON for the infraction WAS "ignoring a warning". So implying that the complaint relates to a general "I wasn't warned" is way off the facts, and adding the words "specifically complained" does not change that fact. There is a difference.

BuffyBot wrote: »

The point I was making is that you're both long enough in the tooth (in boards.ie terms) and aware of the rules (given your past indiscretions) that I think you didn't need any warning or emphasis to know what is acceptable or not.

And the point I am making is that that is NOT the reason for the infraction!

BuffyBot wrote: »

You also seem to be under the impression that some kind of warning needs to be present before a infraction can be issued

100% inaccurate, and frankly - it's complete bull****. I am under no such impression. Please do not make incorrect assumptions and inferences.

To explain my use of the word "bull****" (just in case you choose to ignore the facts again) here's what I posted right here in this thread...

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So if I'd posted something objectionable, and received an infraction saying "Infraction based on the content of your post", then fair enough - no argument.

....there is NO mention of a warning in the above scenario, and I'm very surprised that a supposedly neutral Administrator or mod could be so blinkered as to ignore this and still twist the facts.

Yet again, I'll say it : the issue with the lack of a warning is that I was infracted for ignoring said "non existent" warning. It's there in the title of this thread : "infraction for non-existent (at the time) warning". So there is no logic or reasoning in your statements above.

Look I'm going to leave this, because for whatever of your own reasons you seem determined to find some obscure way of making this stick, including making incorrect assumptions, attributing unwarranted and non-existent "opinions" and ignoring both the actual reason behind the complaint and repeatedly ignoring the question.

For the record, in summary - I would have NO issue with being infracted for iffy or borderline content (I wasn't) had the mod seen fit to do so; refereeing on a complaint should involve precisely that (I've never seen a video ref award a non-existent try because they reckon the ref should have given the team one earlier) - the mod involved made no such reference to the notional possibility of the post being objectionable or infractionable; and finally : I do not appreciate being incorrectly attributed opinions - especially when I specifically indicated the complete opposite in-thread already.

Sad, really, but I'll post no more in this "helpdesk" thread; there's a wall here if I fancy talking to one.

BuffyBot

Well, it's quite obvious I don't agree with your point of view. I'm well aware of the stated reason for the infraction. You're arguing, what is in my opinion, a piece of semantics about how it was issued. It's the equivelent of "I must have this on a green piece of paper, not a blue one" in my eyes.

I'll make it clear again the option I've given you: if you're not enamoured with the reason the infraction was issued under - contact the moderator in question, they may retract and/or re-issue it. If they wish to retract it entirely, they are fully able to do so if they decide that is for the best.

However, the principle of the infraction, I've no intention of interfering with. It's a local issue between you and the moderator: that's the perogative of the Help Desk.