Banned for making a joke.

Brown Bomber

Hi. Was banned yesterday from the conspiracy theories forum by the Recliner. Overall I think the forum is well moderated but everyone makes mistakes and this was one IMO. I just hope common sense can prevail as I'm sure everyone can understand it is frustrating to be on the wrong end of an injustice.

The ban ultimately was for 2 infractions in a short space of time. Never seen this before...I'm aware the forums are subject to moderator discretion but I assume this doesn't give a license to make up the rules as we go along.

Infraction 1 - This post

Originally Posted by alastair
No doubt as valid as your 'reasons' for blaming the Israelis for a bombing in Istanbul. I won't be holding my breath.



Try to concentrate harder. I haven't blamed the Israelis, I suggested that there were reasons to suggest possible involvement.

btw your statement makes no sense. In each case we are talking about the same "reasons".

Quote:
Originally Posted by alastair
The obvious candidates for the bombing were pointed out in this thread before you posted your unsubstantiated allegations and felt the obligation to declare the bleeding obvious 'ignorance'.

Really?

I must have those users on ignore.

Perhaps you could show this to me? That'll be before post 6 btw. haven't you learned from your last banning? The last time you called me a bigot it was you who was wrong in your assumptions. I just don't know if it's worth the effort to show you wrong again.

The history behind it is that Alastair is just back from a ban for in so many words calling me a bigot.

In the post previous to mine he again does the same thing

So sad that you never got to post your 'reasons' that the Israelis (no doubt using their network of chinese painting huxters?) were behind the bomb. It's as if the knee-jerk bigotry is actually all there is to apportion blame on them, given that the actual evidence tells a very different story.

A clear insult by any reasonable standard. I reported the post and nothing was done about it. Despite him making the same slurs against me for which he was banned. Not very consistent.

When he had made the accusations of bigotry against me previously, it was based on his own ignorance of the topic of discussion. Which I proved later in the thread.

Anyway, he was making the same nasty smears against and I responded without any insults in kind.

Infraction 2.

Was a harmless if not very humurous joke.

A user asked me "what the reasons where" so I posted this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMP0dw9W7AQ

Again clearly not insulting anyone, not in breach of the charter and in line with the boards.ie guidelines.

The odd humourous comment thrown into a thread is fine

Brown Bomber

My first infraction was for responding reasonably to provocation through a personal insult.

It's as if the (meaning mine) knee-jerk bigotry is actually all there is to apportion blame on them

This was completely unsubstantiated mud slinging as NOTHING I had said could be considered bigotry. In fact I had said very little at all in that thread.

I'm sure there can be no arguments here that it was in fact an insult.

I reported the insult. Nothing was done.

I initially responded to the personal attack by telling Alastair that I had no interest in discussing anything with him.
(This is based on his history of constant provacation and insults to myself and other members of the forum).

---

There is a catalogue of examples to choose from but here are two:

"There clearly are some stupid people on this forum"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67906355&postcount=126

And here he accuses me of having a mental illness

I'd suggest that would be an indication of some form of mental illness, maybe even psychosis. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67518131&postcount=65

Worth pointing out here that again my response in this instance to his provation and nasty insults was civil.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67518320&postcount=70

---

Again he came back to me with further provacation and with moderator inaction

I replied with this infracted post (in full).

Try to concentrate harder. I haven't blamed the Israelis, I suggested that there were reasons to suggest possible involvement.

btw your statement makes no sense. In each case we are talking about the same "reasons".

Really?

I must have those users on ignore.

Perhaps you could show this to me? That'll be before post 6 btw. haven't you learned from your last banning? The last time you called me a bigot it was you who was wrong in your assumptions. I just don't know if it's worth the effort to show you wrong again.

Now Quite clearly I did not respond to his personal attack with a personal attack nor breach any aspect of the charter. I stayed within the rules yet I was banned and he wasn't. I am at a loss to understand this.

Under the provactive circumstances and any other I believe/know my response was perfectly civil.

The reasoning behind me saying what I said was that Alastair himself was just back from a months ban for again calling me a bigot.

This was the post

Fraid not - it's one of the benefits of not having bigoted blinkers on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68337189&postcount=29

Essentially the same post for which he recieved no punishment for. Again it is worth pointing out that my response was perfectly civil here despite the provocation.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68337508&postcount=32

And to add context - We were arguing over whether in fact Rahm Emanuel had in fact volunteered for the IDF during the Gulf War. He said no I said yes and for this I was in fact a bigot.

The truth is that he did and accepts as such here on camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yA8J-oGQk&feature=player_embedded

I already knew this fact and as facts cant be bigoted he was making false claims.

The reason I bore you with this now is that I was reminding him of his false accusations he had made against me previously. Not responding to his provacation and insults with insults of my own. Yet I was the one who was banned. Again I am at a loss to see how this is just.

Furthermore, after I was banned he was permitted by The Recliner to further nasty, baseless insinuations against me.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68893942&postcount=26
No action taken.

And in another thread after the banning further still (unchecked) insinuations. This is also a good example of the belligerence on the forum.
This time by Diogenes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68909738&postcount=131

I'd also like to point out that in the last month there has been further provocation in the form of 2 Helpdesk threads and a feedback (which was allowed to run for pages) thread where I was the topic of conversation.

These were started by Diogenes who was banned for calling me a Nazi. He dishonestly selectively quoted my (unlinked posts) to give a false impression of my post.

---

Infraction two was simply a light hearted joke, or technically a pun. Zero reason for any infraction or otherwise.

What needs to be understood is that the "skeptic" friendly "conspiracy theory" is a melting pot where conflict is guaranteed. There is only ever one way any discussion ever goes.

There is no better example imo to demonstrate this that this PM from Diogenes to a former CT mod Miju

Originally Posted by original text layout of PM's from Diogenes
MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE MUJI WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? C'MON MUJI SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! WHERE'S THE VERY SUBSTANITAL EVIDENCE MUJI. C'MON MUJI DON'T YOU WANT TO WIPE THE "SMUG GRIN' I "FALSELY HAVE" OFF MY FACE, SO SHOW US THE EVIDENCE
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52592622&postcount=13

I was trying to diffuse the situation and avoid an argument through a light hearted, non confrontational, not insulting to a single person in the whole world nor personal against a single person on the forum. A simple, harmless pun.

Brown Bomber

I understand this wouldn't be one of the most pressing matters you have to deal with but it's onto the 5th day now. Any kind of acknowledgement that it has at least been seen would be appreciated.

Brown Bomber

Just nod if you can hear me...

Seriousy though, if there is some kind of availability issue with Cmods can we skip that stage and and have an admin look into it?

Asiaprod

I have dropped a PM to the CMods in question.

Scofflaw

Indeed, and apologies to Brown Bomber for the long wait without acknowledgement. I got halfway through looking at this one, and was then interrupted by RL and a lot of trolls - still, I should have said that that's what I was doing.

I have to say that this looks to me like a pretty reasonable mod action, taken as a result of BB winding people up, personalising the discussion, and giving people the finger with the Youtube video. Two infractions immediately before the ban, and the same pattern going forward - after a mod warning on-thread to drop the handbags.

There were a small number of people really bickering with each other on that thread, in an unacceptably personal way, and BB was one of them. The others seem to have heeded the mod warning, and BB didn't. That's hardly "banned for making a joke".

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Asiaprod wrote: »

I have dropped a PM to the CMods in question.

Cheers. Much obliged.

Brown Bomber

QUOTE=Scofflaw;68997137]Indeed, and apologies to Brown Bomber for the long wait without acknowledgement. I got halfway through looking at this one, and was then interrupted by RL and a lot of trolls - still, I should have said that that's what I was doing. [/QUOTE]

No worries. Thanks for the response. I apologise in advance for perhaps taking more of your time again.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say that this looks to me like a pretty reasonable mod action, taken as a result of BB winding people up,

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that at all. At the risk of repeating myself I didn't wind anyone up. Someone else tried to wind me up.

• I was called a bigot on thread. (winding up/personalization)
• I reported the post.
• No action was taken
• I did not respond in kind.
• I reminded a user that they have made similar unsubstantiated personal attacks against me to make less of their insults. (not winding up)
• I got infracted.

Message I get: boards.ie Will (sometimes) allow you to be insulted. boards.ie will not let you respond/clarify/defend to these claims reasonably and within the rules.

Scofflaw wrote: »

personalising the discussion,

I have no idea how you can accuse me of personalising the discussion when I had no dealings at all with Alastair until he called me a bigot.

My response was obviousy as a result of him personalizing the discussion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

and giving people the finger with the Youtube video.

Again I fail to understand how you can reach such a conclusion. You are assuming malice where none exists. Why? And for what valid reason?
I've never been banned from that forum in 1500+ posts and maybe 500 under another name before the ban. That's got to be considered a decent track record?

It can't be the video itself as it is completely harmless. I've already explained the reasoning behind it.

and as this is taken from your own guidelines and even fits in with the "attack the post not the poster mantra" though obviously no attack has taken place:

The odd humourous comment thrown into a thread is fine

A pun on the word "reason" which makes no connection to any user on the forum.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Two infractions immediately before the ban, and the same pattern going forward - after a mod warning on-thread to drop the handbags.

In fact there was two infractions TOTAL.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056078536&page=2

And as I've said repeatedly neither were in breach of the charter. When it appears you have to contradict your own guidelines to ban me.

Infractions are a reminder to you that you have broken a rule, but not in a serious way. The rules for every forum can be seen in the Forum Charter which appears at the top of every forum.

Nobody has pointed out which rule(s) I have broken. Two "not in serious way" rule breaches (which I refute) = 2 week ban when under typical circumstances for other users it takes 9 such infractions to enable a ban.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There were a small number of people really bickering with each other on that thread, in an unacceptably personal way, and BB was one of them.

I wasn't bickering with anyone. I attempted to make light of an unsubstantiated personal insult against me. One which I was assured by bonkey was completely unnacceptable.

If someone called you a bigot here, you reported the post and nothing was done. What would you do?

I felt like I had 3 options - 1. Ignore it. Which I would have done had it been an isolated incident. It wasn't though. It's a repeated personal attack from that user. The result being he was free to make these nasty insults now and a precedent is set for him and others to do so again in the future.

2. Insult back - I actually respect the rules and intended to stay within them. So not an option.

3 and option taken. Respond civilly an in line with rules to diminish the personal attack.

It must be remembered that all I did was remind him of his just-returned from ban for making exactly the same personal attack against me.

Nobody has explained to me why this is an infractionable offense.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The others seem to have heeded the mod warning,

Well no actually. And this is important. Alastair had made this personal attack AFTER the mod warning and AFTER I had been banned. Which was exactly the same personal attack again but in different words.

We both know the rationale for your 'reasons' - you just can't allow yourself to express them as it'll expose said 'rationale' to the cold light of day.

Again no moderator action taken. This is zero consistency.

Scofflaw wrote: »

and BB didn't.

I completely dispute this for obvious reasons as I didn't in fact do anything quite as you say. I wasn't the one who personalized the discussion. I wasn't the one who made insults. I posted a pun as an "attempt at humour" in line with the boards.ie official guidelines.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's hardly "banned for making a joke".

moderately,
Scofflaw

Again thanks in advance for taking the time out and sorry for the long post and if it seems like I having a go; really not I just feel it is completely unjust situation here.

Brown Bomber

OK. It looks as if Scofflaw isn't coming back. Admin...?

Brown Bomber

Hello Again.

In the interests of goodwill I would like to drop this ban appeal.

The mod team in the forum have recently made some positive changes to the forum which will involve a lot more work and grief for them and out of appreciation for this I would like to let this go.

I would like to point out I still completely refute the ban (for reasons explained) and in what must be the best part of a month I got no better than a single half-hearted response.

For the sake of your users I'd suggest you reevaluate this process as it could have sorted out quicker if we were sending letters to each other by post.