Banned from Gambling

phantom_lord

Not from Paddy Power, just the forum.

I was alerted to a curious thread where a poster was making a one man stand against all things real and sensible, dismissing all notions of probability and logic, and going as far as creating his own definitions for such words.

He was defending the indefensible gambling system known as the martingale with notions of certain outcomes clearly "being due".

I logged out to check and the thread is still raging as numerous posters try to explain the error of his ways while he soldiers on like Leonidas against Xerxes' hordes refusing to be overcome.

After a long arduous, frankly exasperating exchange against his very interesting debating style where I tried to put forward how he was the victim of simple gamblers fallacy he stated that

Why do you keep repeating this ad nasuem?

I have told you I don't believe this.

And I stated that the reason for this was because he was delusional.

Just for completeness:

These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
These criteria still continue in modern psychiatric diagnosis.

Now just to be clear, I'm not the only person to have wondered on the thread whether the poster concerned is trolling or not, and I'm certainly not the only one to wonder how someone maintains such beliefs.

If a poster was to go into the Geography forum and argue that the world was clearly flat and maintained such a stance despite all reasoning and sense to the contrary riled up the rest of the forum, and this poster was told something similar. Would a similar result occur?

I just find it peculiar that it is the other sensible posters are the ones in the thread being threatened with a ban while someone that is essentially is trolling is allowed free rein?

oscarBravo

shoutman, I've deleted your post. This is Dispute Resolution, there's a process to follow.

phantom_lord, have you tried to work through this by PM with the mod and failed? If so, the cat mods can get involved.

phantom_lord

Yep, with x PyRo who banned me.

g'em

xPyro has been in touch with me, I'll review this and get back to it shortly.

g'em

Hi phantom_lord,

You were banned from the forum for abusing another poster:

phantom_lord wrote: »

And I stated that the reason for this was because he was delusional.

I'm a little at a loss to see how this could be disputed?

Whether or not you believe another poster to be a troll (which in this case I don't think is the case - strong minded and reluctant to see other points of view perhaps, but not trolling) it's not up to you to draw them out and act innapropriately towards them. You bring them to the attention of the Moderator and let them deal with it.

phantom_lord wrote:

I just find it peculiar that it is the other sensible posters are the ones in the thread being threatened with a ban while someone that is essentially is trolling is allowed free rein?

Regardless of whether they are sensible or not it is the abusive, flaming and taunting behaviour that is being threatened with a ban, which is an entirely reasonable action on behalf on the Mod.

phantom_lord

g'em wrote: »

Hi phantom_lord,

You were banned from the forum for abusing another poster:
I'm a little at a loss to see how this could be disputed?

I was banned for saying to that poster the reason he could not be persuaded was because he was delusional.

He was doing the equivalent of arguing that the earth was flat and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. He believed with absolute certainty and undiminished incorrigibility in something completely implausible.

I would submit that what I said was not abusing him, it was merely explaining to him why my argument was not being persuasive.

AlmightyCushion

phantom_lord wrote: »

I was banned for saying to that poster the reason he could not be persuaded was because he was delusional.

He was doing the equivalent of arguing that the earth was flat and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. He believed with absolute certainty and undiminished incorrigibility in something completely implausible.

I would submit that what I said was not abusing him, it was merely explaining to him why my argument was not being persuasive.

I don't understand how anyone can believe the earth is flat. It's a concept I find impossible to comprehend. So I understand where you are coming from but you'll have to find a less abusive way to get your point across. There was no need to call him delusional, it's abuse abuse is against the rules.

phantom_lord

Was I banned for being too blunt? What's the line on abuse? If someone holds those sort of views I think someone should quite fairly be allowed tell them they're not being rational.

g'em

phantom_lord wrote: »

Was I banned for being too blunt? What's the line on abuse? If someone holds those sort of views I think someone should quite fairly be allowed tell them they're not being rational.

You can't create a rule that if someone's wrong it's open house on calling them names and ridiculing them

The line on abuse is straightforward - it's not allowed, hence you were banned.

phantom_lord

I still don't see how that could be construed as abuse? And certainly not abusive enough to warrant an outright immediate ban?

edit: and telling someone they're not being rational is even further from calling them names and and ridiculing them.

phantom_lord

I'm still confused about the gulf here, and why, particularly in that context, my post was considered abusive?

Nevermind how it was abusive enough to actually warrant an outright ban with no prior warning?

I'm curious about this, not only with regard to the issue in question but also for my own modding.

If a similar type of thread appeared in the poker theory forum regard sites being rigged or other outlandish beliefs there's no way I would possibly ban a user for posting what I did.

phantom_lord

I have to say I'm very confused about the procedure here. I assume the whole point of giving someone a ban is to try and correct malevolent behaviour. It still hasn't been conveyed to me how exactly that occurred?

I don't think I was abusive. And no one has tried to explain to me how I was?

If the point of the forum is just for people to post disputes and for them to be ignored or just drip fed replies until either the person loses interest or the ban expires then that seems like a failing on boards part.

As I said, I still don't think it warranted a ban, and I certainly wouldn't do that in the poker theory forum, surely there should be some discussion about that gulf in understanding?

g'em

Do you not think that calling someone delusional is abusive? That's where we differ I'm afraid. It's not attacking the post, it's attacking the poster, breaking a fundamental rule of boards.

I'm not sure how I can make that much clearer but if you dont agree with it you're welcome to request an Admin to take a look.

phantom_lord

g'em wrote: »

Do you not think that calling someone delusional is abusive?

No I don't. Particularly not in this context.

If someone in After Hours went on a rant against women I wouldn't think it was abusive to call them a misogynist either.

Or if the person stiffed people for money I don't think it would abusive to call them stingy.

I think it's just a way to describe their behaviour.

phantom_lord

g'em wrote: »

I'm not sure how I can make that much clearer but if you dont agree with it you're welcome to request an Admin to take a look.

Is the process over unless I do that?

g'em

The way I see it is this - I view your behaviour on that thread as being abusive. While you have every right to disagree with someone's viewpoint you don't have the right to be abusive about it. And yes, "abuse" is rather a harsh term to use in this case because as terminology goes it's not particularly asinine, but I do think that in this case you called a poster delusional in an abusive manner. So with that in mind I agree with the week long ban by the Moderator.

Given that you disagree with the ban and disagree with my assertion (and one of my Co-CMods above) that it was abusive the next step is to escalate it to Admin level.

LoLth

I'm having a read through the thread in question and I'll post back later on tonight or early tomorrow.

thanks

LoLth

LoLth

ok, this one isnt as straightforward as it seems so I apologise for being slightly late with my reply but I wanted to check with the other admins to get their take:

At the point of escalation, the week ban had already passed so any decision made now is not going to be much comfort to Phantom_Lord. I can only apologise for the delay but seeign as an admin comment was requested by the cmod and a resolution hasnt been reached I think it only fair that a comment be made, if only as a reference point for any similar issues that arise in the future.

1. In the DRP , if the cmod supports the moderator decision, then yes, unless you or the cmod escalate the issue to the admins, then that is the end of the process. You have a right to appeal a decision but there is no guarantee that that appeal is going to reult in an outcome more favourable to the person making the appeal than the mod decision being appealed.

2. Using delusional in the context of a debate, even a heated debate, does not necessarily constitute personal abuse; it depends on the way its use was intended. In this instance it was certainly a heated debate and what looks like an exasperating exchange between two posters who firmly believed in the validity of their own position.

3. However, the ban was issued, not on just the use of the term "delusional" but on the basis of what were interpreted as a series of posts that were baiting and mocking in tone culminating in the poster claiming the other poster to be delusional.

If this had been brought to the attention of the admins before the the expiration of the ban we would have recommended that the mod reduced the duration or used a series of infractions for each post he considered baiting or abusive instead but this decision would have ultimately been up to the moderator.

phantom_lord

Thanks for your (and the others too) time, appreciate it.

g'em

thanks LoLth.