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
Double standards on the Politics forum?
Options
Comments
-
Its pretty obvious he is a republican. Either its political bias or some type of vendetta,or a feeble attempt to save face. Either way it is not fair, and I honestly expected better.
Actually, step back from this for a moment. If I don't even know which party he supports, how the hell do know him well enough to get to that point that I hate him? When have you ever seen me ban someone for this reason? What history have I with him that shows my dislike or bias against him?
So you are not actually banning or infracting him for any posts then? So its a case of "oh we were wrong, but to save face ban anyway"Would it not be far more likely given the above that I am acting based on face value and that my decision to ban is genuinely only influenced by his track record in the forum?
You should step back, and see how this is unfair.0 -
Let me ask you again - do you want me to post the record on the basis of which we're making this decision? It's a serious question - I have no objection to posting it, and I think it speaks for itself, but I'd be happier if I knew you didn't mind either.
regards,
Scofflaw
You're persisting with this chimera. Let me reiterate as it's evidently not sinking in: I set up this thread because I believed I had been unfairly treated by a moderator. I posted the post which I had been told was the cause of my 7-day ban. I questioned the justice of this ban by a moderator. You and your fellow moderator closed ranks, entirely avoided the complaint which was the cause of this thread, and proceeded to create new charges against me, claim that they are the reason for the ban and quadruple that ban.
You now wish to expand your chimera by introducing these excuses which are totally unconnected to the ban which I challenged.
Any impartial observer of this thread can see the ignominious way in which you've behaved in your positions as moderators of Boards.ie.0 -
Its pretty obvious he is a republican. Either its political bias or some type of vendetta,or a feeble attempt to save face. Either way it is not fair, and I honestly expected better.
So you are not actually banning or infracting him for any posts then? So its a case of "oh we were wrong, but to save face ban anyway"
You should step back, and see how this is unfair.
Read the post above - we're very clearly stating that this ban is not for any specific post.
You might be under the misapprehension that moderators can only act in response to a specified post, containing a specified offence against something specified in the forum charter. That's not the case - the charter is a guide to help posters avoid committing offences, and the report post facility is there to allow users to flag a post they think is a problem. The job of the moderator is to keep the peace - and if that means getting rid of disruptive posters because they're disruptive, and can be shown to be so, then that's part of the job.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Rebelheart wrote: »You're persisting with this chimera. Let me reiterate as it's evidently not sinking in: I set up this thread because I believed I had been unfairly treated by a moderator. I posted the post which I had been told was the cause of my 7-day ban. I questioned the justice of this ban by a moderator. You and your fellow moderator closed ranks, entirely avoided the complaint which was the cause of this thread, and proceeded to create new charges against me, claim that they are the reason for the ban and quadruple that ban.
You now wish to expand your chimera by introducing these excuses which are totally unconnected to the ban which I challenged.
Any impartial observer of this thread can see the ignominious way in which you've behaved in your positions as moderators of Boards.ie.
So it's OK for me to post your record, then? Drag the chimera into the light of day sort of thing?
Tell you what - I'll assume that if you don't actually say you don't want it posted, it's OK for me to post it. I wouldn't want anyone defending you to do so on any lesser basis than transparency.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
It clearly was not. You are mistaken if you view it as such.I have to flat out disagree with you there. I admired your justification for the insulting post, but it was an insulting post, sorry.
Theres no one post.... so why did nesf come on and say that the ban was for calling the supporters, not a poster, deluded?As I said, I can easily quote all the infractions and bans involved, and it really is on the basis of that record - over the last six months! - that we've decided to institute a month's ban with a permaban on next offence. There's no one post that ban results from, and it has nothing to do with the ban that originally started this thread.
Was that a lie?
A feeble attempt at justification?
Now that you have been called up on the blatant unfairness of a ban for said post you are saying that the ban is just a ban for RH in general?
Get the story straight.
This is laughable. He gets banned for something which isnt a ban. You then say it was or something else. Then you say, no, its not really, its for his past history for which he did his time for.Nope, sorry - they're entirely fair, and that's not going to happen. I have absolutely no problem defending this action based on Rebelheart's posting record.
Im not blind, if RH wanted to insult he would straight out tell them to **** off.I'm sorry that you're completely blind to his faults and would rather ascribe the action to bias and prejudice on the part of people you've previously found not to be biased and prejudiced. If someone puts a fair case to me, I've never had a problem changing my mind, and I've never had a problem apologising when I'm in the wrong either - and there, I think, my record, like Rebelheart's, speaks for itself.
I having to rapidly revise that opinion, it is true that I always thought you where fair, but this, what is happening here, clearly is not fair.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its pretty obvious he is a republican. Either its political bias or some type of vendetta,or a feeble attempt to save face. Either way it is not fair, and I honestly expected better.
Why does it have to be one of these three things? Why couldn't it simply be that this final post was the straw that broke the camel's back?you are not actually banning or infracting him for any posts then? So its a case of "oh we were wrong, but to save face ban anyway"
Nope. Not at all. I looked at his record. Looked at this post, saw aggressive behaviour towards other users with a broad array of insults aimed at other groups and decided that enough was enough and that this user wasn't learning from their bans/infractions and things needed to be stepped up.You should step back, and see how this is unfair.
I would absolutely agree with you if I gave this ban to someone without Rebelheart's history on the forum. In fact I would argue that such a ban would by default have to be either politically motivated or a vendetta.
But bans are never in isolation and your previous history will always count towards your punishments on a forum and it's been this way pretty much since I joined this site.
Regardless, I'm off to bed. We can talk about this more tomorrow if you're of the mind to do so. As a side point, if you fundamentally disagree with this ban, which seems the case, then you should feel free to ask the admins to review this. They'll have absolutely no qualms about overruling us if they feel we are wrong in how we acted.0 -
Im not blind, if RH wanted to insult he would straight out tell them to **** off.
I having to rapidly revise that opinion, it is true that I always thought you where fair, but this, what is happening here, clearly is not fair.
I'm afraid it is absolutely 100% fair. As I said, I'm sorry you can't see that, but no amount of argument from either of you is going to change Rebelheart's record.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It honestly is not fair.I'm afraid it is absolutely 100% fair. As I said, I'm sorry you can't see that, but no amount of argument from either of you is going to change Rebelheart's record.
cordially,
Scofflaw
What this is, quite frankly, is absolute bollocks.
Is it any wonder we have people like dlofnep "running out of patience" with the politics forum?0 -
So it's OK for me to post your record, then? Drag the chimera into the light of day sort of thing?
Tell you what - I'll assume that if you don't actually say you don't want it posted, it's OK for me to post it. I wouldn't want anyone defending you to do so on any lesser basis than transparency.
regards,
Scofflaw
I'm glad to see you've heard of the word transparency. Judging from your actions tonight, you're patently averse to it. Your desire to bring in a totally unrelated issue into this thread would be deemed 'off-topic' by a moderator and you would be told that a ban would follow if you persisted in derailing this thread. But seeing as you are a moderator you'll do whatever you feel like doing.
I can just imagine you in a court of law as a prosecutor trying to do this. The case would immediately collapse for reasons of bias and unfair trial. Next time you instruct somebody to keep on topic, I hope they'll show you what you've done to the topic of this thread.0 -
It honestly is not fair.
What this is, quite frankly, is absolute bollocks.
Is it any wonder we have people like dlofnep "running out of patience" with the politics forum?
You should probably wait and see Rebelheart's record before committing yourself. Assuming, that is, that he doesn't object to it being posted here.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
This phantom post that you said was the reason for the ban when you realized the original post was not an insult?Why does it have to be one of these three things? Why couldn't it simply be that this final post was the straw that broke the camel's back?
This "straw that broke the camels back" which would not warrent a second look if it was made by someone else?
So you went looking for something to use as an excuse to ban him. At least scofflaw has enough cop to try and not rely on that post.
No, you looked at the post, saw it wasnt an insult, grabbed another post figured that would do, I called you up on it, you admit that only RH would get banned for it, then decide to shift again to his record, and say that its really that.Nope. Not at all. I looked at his record. Looked at this post, saw aggressive behaviour towards other users with a broad array of insults aimed at other groups and decided that enough was enough and that this user wasn't learning from their bans/infractions and things needed to be stepped up.
It is a vendetta, quite clearly. You copped the first post wasnt a ban, went and got another, and made up a reason to ban him for that.I would absolutely agree with you if I gave this ban to someone without Rebelheart's history on the forum. In fact I would argue that such a ban would by default have to be either politically motivated or a vendetta.
Have a nice sleep.Regardless, I'm off to bed. We can talk about this more tomorrow if you're of the mind to do so. As a side point, if you fundamentally disagree with this ban, which seems the case, then you should feel free to ask the admins to review this. They'll have absolutely no qualms about overruling us if they feel we are wrong in how we acted.0 -
I dont care what his record is.You should probably wait and see Rebelheart's record before committing yourself. Assuming, that is, that he doesn't object to it being posted here.
cordially,
Scofflaw
He was initially banned for something which was not an insult
nesf then came on and said that it was really for a different post
I then called him up on it, if it was a different user it wouldnt warrent a second glance.
You dissociate yourself from that POV and cover for nesf by basically saying, wait, no it was the first post, eh, but sure either way he deserves a ban.0 -
You should probably wait and see Rebelheart's record before committing yourself. Assuming, that is, that he doesn't object to it being posted here.
cordially,
Scofflaw
When you produce a case for how it caused my seven-day ban this evening, then you might have a plausible case for introducing this supposedly indictable "evidence". You've utterly failed to prove such a causation, and you will assuredly continue to flounder in making it because I've the reason in black and white why I was banned, and it had everything to do with my comment, and absolutely nothing to do with this distraction which you want to introduce as ex-post facto justification for your kangaroo court.
Thank you, and good night.0 -
I dont care what his record is.
He was initially banned for something which was not an insult
nesf then came on and said that it was really for a different post
I then called him up on it, if it was a different user it wouldnt warrent a second glance.
You dissociate yourself from that POV and cover for nesf by basically saying, wait, no it was the first post, eh, but sure either way he deserves a ban.
And thank you so much, Mussolini, for having the honesty and courage to stand up for me on this.0 -
It is a vendetta, quite clearly. You copped the first post wasnt a ban, went and got another, and made up a reason to ban him for that.
Oh, rubbish. If the ban was unfair, we'd have overturned it. It's what we do, and we've never had any problem doing it in the past.
If you want to claim vendetta, you'd need to show some history of animosity between me and Rebelheart or nesf and Rebelheart. I wish you all the best with that, because there is no such history. I don't generally post on the threads Rebelheart posts on, because they don't interest me, so I haven't ever had any exchanges with him that I can remember. For the same reason - that I have no interest in NI politics or the "national question" - I have no likes or dislikes in terms of those politics, so there's no political animosity on my part either.
You're really not getting this - we're sorry dlofnep is throwing a flounce, because he's a good poster, and we're putting Rebelheart in the sin bin because he hasn't been a good poster (and could presumably become one if he wanted to). From my perspective, he's just a poster who insults people, and that's not of any value to the forum and the other posters.
I don't care what political banner he posts his insults under, I don't have any personal feelings about him at all, and part of my job is not covering for other mods if they make bad calls - as nesf points out, we did so this morning, so I don't see how you can make that story work for you either, really. As I said, you should really see his record before you defend him so vehemently.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not a problem, I have no problem in pointing out what is, quite clearly, unfair and underhanded. Hopefully this will be resolved with a satisfactory result tomorrow.Rebelheart wrote: »And thank you so much, Mussolini, for having the honesty and courage to stand up for me on this.0 -
That explains how todays 7 day ban is justified how?Oh, rubbish. If the ban was unfair, we'd have overturned it. It's what we do, and we've never had any problem doing it in the past.
If you want to claim vendetta, you'd need to show some history of animosity between me and Rebelheart or nesf and Rebelheart. I wish you all the best with that, because there is no such history. I don't generally post on the threads Rebelheart posts on, because they don't interest me, so I haven't ever had any exchanges with him that I can remember. For the same reason - that I have no interest in NI politics or the "national question" - I have no likes or dislikes in terms of those politics, so there's no political animosity on my part either.
You're really not getting this - we're sorry dlofnep is throwing a flounce, because he's a good poster, and we're putting Rebelheart in the sin bin because he hasn't been a good poster (and could presumably become one if he wanted to). From my perspective, he's just a poster who insults people, and that's not of any value to the forum and the other posters.
I don't care what political banner he posts his insults under, I don't have any personal feelings about him at all, and part of my job is not covering for other mods if they make bad calls - as nesf points out, we did so this morning, so I don't see how you can make that story work for you either, really. As I said, you should really see his record before you defend him so vehemently.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
That explains how todays 7 day ban is justified how?
The seven-day ban has been explained by GuanYin. I see that post as an insult, which is why it got reported, and why Rebelheart got a ban, because insulting people is what Rebelheart does.
As I said, I admired how you explained it away - "just bowing to another poster's greater experience" - but, really, if you honestly don't realise Rebelheart thinks he's being cleverly insulting there, you're in a teeny-tiny minority, and one that doesn't include me or nesf. If another poster without Rebelheart's very long history of insulting people had made that post, I might have taken that explanation and gone for benefit of the doubt - unlikely, though, since the poster would need a history of making honest but fatuous remarks that could easily be misinterpreted - in Rebelheart's case, it only looks like he was being snidely insulting rather than openly insulting.
Now, if you'd like to go through every poster on the site and ask them whether they think that was intended as a snide insult (or insulting snide remark, if you prefer), I can pretty much guarantee that virtually the only posters on your side of the fence will be fellow republicans who are prepared to put politically tinted glasses on before looking at it.
So the original ban isn't something I would overturn anyway - and it's not as if I have some kind of problem overturning bans.
However, the month's ban effectively renders that largely irrelevant, because the month's ban isn't for that post (and a month's ban would be seriously excessive for just that post) - it's essentially just a one last chance before a permaban descends. Rebelheart has a month to decide whether he wants to give up insulting the posters on the Politics forum, or to give up posting on the Politics forum.
It's entirely up to Rebelheart - he can stop insulting people, or he can leave. It's his choice. If he'd like to state here and now that he's not going to bother changing his ways when the ban expires (because it's a vendetta or politically inspired internet thuggery or whatever explanation he likes the sound of), I can make that permaban effective immediately, because that's what this is about. If he'd rather a week's ban on the same basis as the month - that is, that he understands his next offensive post will be his last in the forum - that's fine with me either. I'm not fussy about how long he takes to decide what he's going to do, and if he doesn't need a month, that's grand - I'd prefer to deal with it while I still have his record to hand, rather than having to trawl for it in a month.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
This 1 month ban, on the face of it, is beyond a joke.0
-
IITYWYBMAD wrote: »This 1 month ban, on the face of it, is beyond a joke.
If it was a first ban then yes I would agree with you, however when a poster has a history of disruptive behaviour and has been banned before then it is totally justified to increase the length of the ban to try to get them to see the error of their ways.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is NOT feedback, this is a discussion of a moderator action by the user acted against in an effort to have it overturned
@Rebelheart: if you wish to contest the ban take it to the Dispute resolution forum where it can be discussed. Seriously though, looking at your ban and infraction history they are all for almost exactly the same thing. Your tone and attitude while posting. I think you should consider that this many moderators in this many fora cant all be wrong and the issue , most likely, is in the way you approach boards. There's nothing wrong with opinions and there's nothing wrong with expressing them. There can , however, be something wrong with HOW they are expressed.
@IITYWYBMAD: "on the face of it" is possibly the most important part of that statement. rebelheart's record over the last 2 years is not exactly glowing. Thats not to say a ban cannot be unfair and cannot be appealed BUT there is a lot more to this than initially meets the eye and Moderators (and category moderators) do generally ban on a scale. short ban first, followed by longer. The Cmods have decided that his ban history warranted a logner ban in this instance.
@Scofflaw, nesf & Mussolini: thank you for your input but this really is not the place for this conversation. if rebelheart opens a thread in the DRF we can continue this conversation there.
Closing this thread.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement