Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Banned from After Hours
Options
-
08-12-2010 11:56pm#1I was told that if I wanted to discuss this that I needed to start a thread even though I was replying to an Admin PM to me... but anyway.
I have a 14 day ban starting today from After Hours for various accusations which the mods have, for the most part failed or refused to adequately discuss with me via PM. I understand that their decision is theirs to make and is final but I'm more interested in discussing a few issues I'd like to raise in my defence in this area (possibly the severity of the ban too). These have already been raised with mods in question and I have yet to receive an adequate answer. I understand that they have no obligation to answer me, but as I cannot access the forum in question it is difficult for me to raise issue with certain "vagueries" on behalf of the mods in question.
There seem to be a few key elements of the complaint which I propose to deal with as follows:
1) Trolling
2) Insulting those on the minimum wage.
3) Numerous insensitive posts about suicide.
4) Grammar nazism
5) pursuing other posters in off topic conversations after a number of warnings.
1) I was not trolling, nor do I ever "troll" fora. The accusation is "trolling by my own admission" and while it is true that in response to another comment I responded something along the lines of "well obviously I'm just trolling." which was not followed by either :rolleyes: or
- I noticed this and proceeded to edit my post, but it had been deleted. It was clearly a joke and following many legitimate posts in the forum that day and for MONTHS I am surprised at the accusation. Nonetheless, even if it was taken to be that I was trolling (which is within the mod's rights) I did not intend to troll and I was making valid posts 99% of the time, which I submit is pretty good for an 'Off Topic' forum.
2) I don't even really know what to day about this accusation. I posted comments in the budget thread defending the cut in the minimum wage. Things got heated but I did not once "insult" someone on the minimum wage. I may have mentioned the ability to upskill and that nobody is "stuck" on minimum wage - these are not "trolling" remarks nor are they meant to cause problems. That was a genuine conversation in a budget thread about something relevant to the budget. Did other posters take it too far, yes - and they were banned - but it was never my intention to "troll" by saying that the minimum wage is too high. There were no "attacks" on other posters at all. In fact, I was engaged in a rational discussion about the minimum wage and "entitlements"... That's just my opinion!
3) I made ONE joke about suicides making the live register numbers go down (taking the piss out of the government bragging that emigration made same numbers go down). Insensitive, perhaps... trolling, no.
This was followed promptly in reply with a post saying that of course I was not serious, explaining the joke and saying in jest something akin to ";)I'm just in a controversial mood tonight:eek: " (or something VERY similar). It was clear that I was kidding from the post and it was not trolling on my part or attempting to cause disagreements by saying that. Clearly the mods took me saying I was in a controversial mood and decided that "I admitted trolling and trying to stir up trouble" etc.
It's just not accurate, I'm sorry.
4) I can only imagine this is in relation to explaining redundancies (a technical point, yes... grammar nazisim, no) in reply to another poster who had gotten the concept wrong IMO. Apparently this post was a mere "English lession" and was off topic. Neither of these facts are accurate. My "English lesson" is important to understanding employment figures and was in the budget 2011 thread. Don't even know what to say other than that about this ridiculous accusation other than I believe the mods of AH had already made a decision based on external issues (post in "The Lock Inn" and snide remarks made to me in "Reported Posts").
5) I was not pursuing other posters in Off Topic conversations. Look back at all my posts from yesterday and you will see that 95%+ of my posts were completely on-topic (other than those incorrectly deemed off-topic by the mods - i.e. "english lessons") There were certainly weird posts that were in the toilet paper / shampoo thread. well... I'm not sure really what to say about that. The whole thread was "off topic"
I don't know when AH became such serious business, but apparently there is no room for joking in there anymore. We have no dedicated "Off Topic" forum and I always assumed AH was it!?
IMO this is being blown WAY out of proportion. I agree, the suicide joke was in bad taste and I'm sorry if it offended people. I see one person reported it and 2 complained on thread (when those 2 on thread were told I was kidding and why I made the joke they got it). I was wrong. Does that deserve a 14 day ban? No.
Are all of these other things tacked on to get rid of me? I believe so.
Regarding thread warnings, any warning was complied with and no direction was questioned. I disagree that I didn't comply with mod direction and direction which I disagreed with I raised via PM.
This is ex post facto banning after reviewing posts made prior to warnings on thread and/or warnings added at beginning of threads IMO.
I'm a good contributor to these fora, but it's clear that while some members get away with making jokes and having fun (moderators included) I seem to be the one disliked by AH mods and banned for the smallest reason and without considering everything.
The decision was made by AH mods to allow political threads in AH to continue so that there would be a bit of banter and AH-style political discussions. I did nothing outside of that bar a tasteless joke.
If AH is a serious political forum then merge it with Politics.0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm willing to accept that your intent may not be to troll ... but the AH mods / cmods see the impact as trolling. Different drummers ... life's rich pageant.
A blog might be a more suitable platform for genuinely held albeit controversial opinions.
[...] why posting that minimum wage is too high in a budget thread in Politics is accepted but posting same in the budget thread in AH is "controversial" and "trolling".No, I don't see where you are coming from, and I'm not prepared to go down a rabbit hole with a sidebar conversation. I want to bring this to a conclusion.
If you believe the norm in AH is for every poster to have the same opinion and never disagree ... you are mistaken. The overwhelming majority of posters in AH toe the line, and manage to hold contrary opinions without being contrary.
You weren't banned for having an opinion. You were banned for the reasons highlighted in the OP. Those reasons have been upheld by the AH mod community.
From the position of honest broker, I have looked over your posts, and the reasons for the ban ... and my decision is to uphold the ban.
One interchange in particular brought me to this conclusion; where you challenged another poster to publicly name the barrister they claimed to have engaged on some constitutional matter. When the other poster declined you responded with "I think you're full of shít". This sequence of posts is now deleted, but will be visible to the AH mods, cmods and any Admins who care to take a look (from post #400 onwards).
In this sequence of posts, I see enough evidence of disruptive and abusive OT death-by-a-thousand-cuts trolling behaviour to uphold the ban.
I don't think we can mark this resolved, with such a fundamental difference between what you think is acceptable for AH, and what the AH mod community think is acceptable.
I've taken this as far as I can ... I'll welcome Admin input at this time.
I understand your position and admit that some posts were out of line - for clarification though, I think you'll find that I did not ask to have the Barrister publicly named, I invited him to inform me as to which one of the "constitutional expert" Barristers he employed via PM if he so wished. I believed that clearly he did not because he was telling fibs (perhaps "I think you're full of shít" is a slightly less eloquent manner of posting the opinion that said individual is not telling the truth in my respectful opinion).
I actually do not wish to argue, but I genuinely want to know in relation to two points which I don't feel were adequately discussed: at what stage does posting an opinion that is "controversial" to a few people (i.e. that the minimum wage is too high) become, subjectively, trolling; and where does making a point, albeit technical, about redundancy (for example) become "grammar nazism" rather than pointing out the inherent wrongness (for lack of a better word) of a person's whole theory?
I take your point that saying "I think you're full of shít" is not nice (I'm not really a nice person
) and I'll be doing my best to phrase my disdain for others in a more appropriate manner in the future. I could easily have said something else or ignored it but I didn't and I have to accept that - mistakes we all can make in the heat of a moment.
If I'm banned for just insulting other members and/or being naughty (saying full of shít and suicide joke) I would understand, but I'm actually interested in where my behaviour turns into trolling. I enjoy posting in AH usually and if I decide to continue to post there following the ban lift I would actually like to know what to do in the future to keep in line and not cause too much trouble!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Thanks the time and effort is appreciated and I can see how a few posts (even if meant as a joke - some clearly weren't but the trolling comment was certainly a joke) can be taken as trolling.
I do believe though that these are but a tiny percentage of my total posts (for that day even) and while they can be disruptive it was not my intention to do so.
I think I'll start having to write a disclaimer [this is a joke] at the end of posts where I am kidding.
Seriously though, thanks for the time of both trout and Asiaprod and I'll make an effort to ensure that this type of thing doesn't arise again.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement