Issue with AH Ban

scudzilla

I was banned from AH for 7 days last night, mainly due to posts in the Gary Coleman thread, i've tried talking it out with the mod in question, but he can't seem to make his mind up if it's 2 or 3 things i did wrong, and also the cmod.

I made 5 posts in the thread, the last one was deleted where i think i said 'So is the ban a long or a short one' , I asked that as the mod had threatened to ban somebody else iand i was curios as to the length of the ban, in hindsight i maybe should have pm'd him this question.

I was told by the cmod that i was banned for arguing on thread, i cannot see anywhere at all where i've had an argument.

IMO i think the mod totally lost control of the thread and instead of closing it when the train started coming off the rails just made matters worse by using veiled threats against Boards.ie members Ok, I may not have been clear in my last post. so to make it simple, keep this on topic or bad things will happen

A warning would have been ok but a 7 day ban seems very harsh

Zaph

OK, given that you've already spoken to the mod, you should PM one of the CMods (AlmightyCushion/trout/kbannon) and they'll look into things for you. If you're still not happy after speaking to them please come back to this thread an an admin will review the issue.

scudzilla

Zaph wrote: »

OK, given that you've already spoken to the mod, you should PM one of the CMods (AlmightyCushion/trout/kbannon) and they'll look into things for you. If you're still not happy after speaking to them please come back to this thread an an admin will review the issue.

Thanks for the prompt response, i've already spoken with the CMod Trout and he is basically backing up the mod's decision, pretty unfair in my eyes

trout

I have looked into it ... the ban was for ignoring mod warnings, and arguing mod decisions on thread.

At first glance, it seems a little harsh, but having reviewed the posts, and the subsequent PMs ... I couldn't recommend overturning the ban, or reducing the length of it.

scudzilla

trout wrote: »

I have looked into it ... the ban was for ignoring mod warnings, and arguing mod decisions on thread.

At first glance, it seems a little harsh, but having reviewed the posts, and the subsequent PMs ... I couldn't recommend overturning the ban, or reducing the length of it.

Please tell me where i was exactly 'ARGUING' mod decisions on thread??

You say that at first glance it seems harsh, and that subsequent pm's mean you wouldn't recommend overturning a ban, i said nothing wrong in those pm's, if i did then please say so in here.

Zaph

OK, I've had a good look at the thread in question and spoken at length with both Micky Dolenz and trout. What it all boils down to is that you ignored multiple mod instructions on the thread, and that's pretty much an automatic ban in any forum on Boards. Now you could have argued that the ban was a bit harsh, but rather than arguing against that in itself you decided to go on a PM crusade and start arguing about all sorts of other things instead - the mods had been drinking, the mod doesn't know how many breaches of the charter there were, your name has been tarnished, and so on.

What this all boils down to imo is your initial misdemeanour, which was ignoring the mod instruction which further derailed what was already a train wreck of a thread. Regardless of any other considerations that warrants a ban and so I see no reason to overturn the one you were given.

scudzilla

Zaph wrote: »

OK, I've had a good look at the thread in question and spoken at length with both Micky Dolenz and trout. What it all boils down to is that you ignored multiple mod instructions on the thread, and that's pretty much an automatic ban in any forum on Boards. Now you could have argued that the ban was a bit harsh, but rather than arguing against that in itself you decided to go on a PM crusade and start arguing about all sorts of other things instead - the mods had been drinking, the mod doesn't know how many breaches of the charter there were, your name has been tarnished, and so on.

What this all boils down to imo is your initial misdemeanour, which was ignoring the mod instruction which further derailed what was already a train wreck of a thread. Regardless of any other considerations that warrants a ban and so I see no reason to overturn the one you were given.

Let me correct you on a few points here, i never said that the mods had been drinking, i said 1 mod had probably had a few, and if you look at his previous posts that night i'd say i was spot on it that assumption.

I did not go on a PM crusade, i was polite and courteous and asked for reasons behind my ban, which micky gave me and i wasn't happy with.

Getting involved in a discussion about why i was banned is hardly a crusade now is it?

What actions are to be taken against Mickey and his threat of "behave or bad things will happen"??

I'm sure if any other member threatened that then a ban would be forthcoming

Zaph

scudzilla wrote: »

Let me correct you on a few points here, i never said that the mods had been drinking, i said 1 mod had probably had a few, and if you look at his previous posts that night i'd say i was spot on it that assumption.

Purely supposition on your part and I have no evidence one way or the other to either confirm or refute the allegation. It is however expected that moderators don't mod once they've had a few so that they can carry out their duties properly and not leave themselves open to suggestions that they were unfit to do so. However, that's not a hard and fast rule as there is no way of enforcing it, we simply have to trust that mods will be responsible adults and keep away from the keyboard in such cases. As regards who you aimed the comment at, I suggest you re-read your first PM to the CMods where you clearly state mods, and don't mention one specific individual.

scudzilla wrote: »

I did not go on a PM crusade, i was polite and courteous and asked for reasons behind my ban, which micky gave me and i wasn't happy with.

Getting involved in a discussion about why i was banned is hardly a crusade now is it?

I never suggested that you were anything other than polite and courteous, although perhaps crusade was the wrong word to use in this case. From the information provided to me you argued X, which was refuted so you argued Y instead. When that was refuted you argued Z. It seems that no matter what explanation you'd been given it wasn't satisfactory. As far as I'm concerned you ignored mod instructions and that's the primary, and perfectly legitimate reason for the ban.

scudzilla wrote: »

What actions are to be taken against Mickey and his threat of "behave or bad things will happen"??

I'm sure if any other member threatened that then a ban would be forthcoming

There will be no action taken against Micky, and even if there was it would be of no concern to you. If a mod threatens "bad things", really what would you expect, that he's going to hunt you down and hit you over the head or something? All that a mod has in their armoury are infractions and bans, that's the extent of the bad things that they can impose. And plenty of mods on the site, myself included, have used similar language when handing out on-thread warnings. It's not a death threat or anything, it's just an indication that carrying on in the current manner will lead to some form of punishment.

scudzilla

Hang on for 2 seconds, I appealed against the length of the ban, the ban was given to me for what happened in the thread, NOT what happened after in PM's (Not that ANY rules were broken in the pm's at all).

So why are you all now bringing PM's into this?

scudzilla

scudzilla wrote: »

Hang on for 2 seconds, I appealed against the length of the ban, the ban was given to me for what happened in the thread, NOT what happened after in PM's (Not that ANY rules were broken in the pm's at all).

So why are you all now bringing PM's into this?

Is anybody going to answer my question on why PM's are now involved, when it was the original 7 day ban i was discussing?

Also, how come others are getting bans of 3 days for full on name calling? Yet i get 7 days for something far less serious.

Doesn't seem to be any consistency at all

Zaph

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I haven't been around much for the past few days.

I only mentioned your PMs with regard to the fact that you offered various alternative reasons as to why you'd been banned, all of which avoided the fact that you were banned for ignoring a mod instruction. That's all that really matters in this case.

As regards the length of you ban compared to other bans, we do not discuss other posters' ban with anyone other than the mods involved and the poster themself.