I was banned on the rugby forum for breaking the forum rules

forlorndonkey

This is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion. No I'm not twisting things around or anything, read for yourself:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056129786&page=62

I would appreciate it if the ban was overturned as soon as possible thanks.


I've pm'd a few mods, one of them got back and sad it's technically a ban for disagreeing with him.

forlorndonkey

I'll just post this here as it explains the backround on various things in advance, and saves me having to type it all up again:

First of all, stating that my discussing my opinion that David Wallace is a better player than Sean O Brien amounts to 'Trolling' when the conversation I was having with several forum members was extremely cordial, and when it was put forward so politely and qualified so many times, is quite frankly ridiculous.

Obviously your arrangement is to close ranks no matter what. That's fine, I'll get to the bottom of this one way or another.

Secondly, this is just a forum, and unlike many of you I don't live on the internet, so I'm just getting an idea now of what the protocol is, which is why I initially registered other accounts etc, not knowing I was only banned from the Rugby section and so on. I was not aware there were established channels for this sort of scenario. But now I am, and rest assured I will follow up on this.

Trojan wrote:

Your statement

SOB relies on incompetent defense

sounds very much like trolling to me. We see plenty of it on the Rugby forum.

Your ban was for questioning moderation decisions on a discussion thread - what you should have done was either PM'd the mod in question, or opened a new thread on the Dispute Resolution forum here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

I won't be revoking your ban as I think the moderation decision was correct.

forlorndonkey wrote:

One minute I was having a pleasant and civil discussion with several posters, the next I was banned by RuggieBear just for holding a different opinion on who should play for Ireland than him.

Yes I'm serious, no I'm not twisting the story to suit me or anything like that, read for yourself:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056129786&page=62

I know moderators are unpaid volunteers, but there have to be some sort of standards on a site this big. It is unacceptable behavior on his part. I trust my ban will be revoked shortly.

FD

forlorndonkey

And finally, I can see now I'm supposed to pm this RuggieBear fella, but I'm banned from the rugby forum so how can I do this? Unless he wants to post here or something I don't see how this is possible?

Khannie

forlorndonkey wrote: »

And finally, I can see now I'm supposed to pm this RuggieBear fella, but I'm banned from the rugby forum so how can I do this? Unless he wants to post here or something I don't see how this is possible?

You can send a PM to anyone whose username you have. For example go to quick links->private messages->send new message.

Khannie

Ok, this seems pretty cut and dry to me. You were told not to post again because the moderator thought you were trolling. You posted again questioning the mod and you got banned.

This is the post in question.

Now maybe you weren't trolling (though it looks to me that you were). If that is the case, the proper thing to do is to drop the moderator (ruggiebear in this case) a PM explaining yourself instead of arguing in thread.

If you check the charter in the Rugby forum it's pretty clear on this:

Things not to do

Argue with a mod on thread

forlorndonkey

Khannie wrote: »

Ok, this seems pretty cut and dry to me. You were told not to post again because the moderator thought you were trolling. You posted again questioning the mod and you got banned.

This is the post in question.

Now maybe you weren't trolling (though it looks to me that you were). If that is the case, the proper thing to do is to drop the moderator (ruggiebear in this case) a PM explaining yourself instead of arguing in thread.

If you check the charter in the Rugby forum it's pretty clear on this:

What do you think people will do in that situation? Like I said in my pm to that mod, I don't live on the internet. I didn't know all these complicated little rules of engagement. I'm now trying to do things 'by the book', but it seems unfair to hold it against me now for not knowing that my response had to be by PM.


Quite frankly, any suggestion that disagreement over trivial selection matters in sports constitutes 'trolling' is absolutely ridiculous.

Khannie

forlorndonkey wrote: »

What do you think people will do in that situation? Like I said in my pm to that mod, I don't live on the internet. I didn't know all these complicated little rules of engagement. I'm now trying to do things 'by the book', but it seems unfair to hold it against me now for not knowing that my response had to be by PM.

We're well aware that people don't know the all the rules of engagement when they first sign up. Of course everyone starts somewhere and of course that gets taken into consideration. But it's also the primary reason that every forum has a charter. The Rugby forum charter thread includes these words in it's title "READ BEFORE POSTING!".

forlorndonkey wrote: »

Quite frankly, any suggestion that disagreement over trivial selection matters in sports constitutes 'trolling' is absolutely ridiculous.

You're right, that would be ridiculous. Disagreement over team selection happens all the time. Your posts weren't merely "disagreement over trivial selection matters" though. They read to me and others as deliberately inciting. People do that on the internet (and in real life). Now whether that's the case or not, they read that way and you were told not to discuss the matter further on thread. You ignored that, got a short ban, then re-registered to circumvent the ban (that's a big no-no).

All of these things mean that I think some kind of ban should stand. RuggieBear has suggested that the ban be reduced given the complicated rules of enagement and what not that you mention and I'd support that. I'll get back to you on the duration. Make sure you read the charter before posting in that forum again though. I know it can be confusing at the start, but the charters really do contain most of the information you'll need to avoid this kind of process in future.

If you're happy enough with that, let me know and we can bring this to a close.

forlorndonkey

Khannie wrote: »

You're right, that would be ridiculous. Disagreement over team selection happens all the time. Your posts weren't merely "disagreement over trivial selection matters" though. They read to me and others as deliberately inciting. People do that on the internet (and in real life). Now whether that's the case or not, they read that way and you were told not to discuss the matter further on thread. You ignored that, got a short ban, then re-registered to circumvent the ban (that's a big no-no).

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Virtually every post I made on the subject included a self effacing placatement along the lines of 'but what do I know anyway?' or 'but we'll see soon enough, he'll get his chance in 2 weeks time'.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70177848&postcount=865

forlondonkey wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong I don't know, you know what they say about opinions.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70177908&postcount=868

forlondonkey wrote:

Again, you might be right and I might be wrong... Maybe he's just incredibly good at wriggling free out of tackles though...
The proof will be in the pudding though, Sean O Brien is almost certain to start.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70185047&postcount=894

forlondonkey wrote:

I'm not a Munster supporter by the way, I'm just not convinced by Sean O Brien yet. If he keeps scoring like this then it couldn't be luck and it must be due to some ability to break tackles like you said. We'll see if he can make a better fist of his opportunity at international level this time than he did in the Autumn Internationals.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70185714&postcount=898

forlondonkey wrote:

There really is no way of seeing until he plays for Ireland, if he can do it at that level then fair enough.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70188905&postcount=912

forlondonkey wrote:

I thought I was very diplomatic?...
Like I said though, maybe he actually is just better at escaping tackles than everyone else, we'll see soon enough when he gets his chance.

At one point I thought someone was getting angry so I said not to mind me, I'm just some eejit on the internet. Turned out he wasn't angry at all.

forlorndonkey wrote:

Ah calm down, you're talking with some anonymous gob****e on the internet at 3 in the morning, not taking on the selection committee for jaysus sake!

corny wrote:

What gave you the impression i'm angry?

This is a rugby forum. We're supposed to talk rugby. D'you wanna talk about the weather instead?

I am simply unable to understand how anyone could come to the conclusion that I was trying to do anything but, knowing my opinion is controversial, keep the peace? And I thought I was doing a great job of it, my conversations with other posters were very cordial until RuggieBear interjected.

All of these things mean that I think some kind of ban should stand. RuggieBear has suggested that the ban be reduced given the complicated rules of enagement and what not that you mention and I'd support that. I'll get back to you on the duration. Make sure you read the charter before posting in that forum again though. I know it can be confusing at the start, but the charters really do contain most of the information you'll need to avoid this kind of process in future.

If you're happy enough with that, let me know and we can bring this to a close.

I think I've handle on the rules now as far as how to argue with moderators. I don't think it would be fair to punish me either for replying to RuggieBears warning by posting instead of by PM, or making other accounts (I didn't know I could pm the other mods just by knowing their names), as I didn't know the protocol for this scenario.







To conclude:
I was diplomatic when putting my point across as I have shown in this post. I was also conciliatory when others took umbrage. My discussion with other posters on this subject was cordial and polite. My point itself was an esoteric and relatively trivial point (which of two excellent, world class players should start at 7), and describing it as 'trolling' is bizarre.

Khannie

So despite the re-reg's and ignoring the forum charter, you believe that there should be no ban at all, is that correct?

forlorndonkey

I didn't know they were against the rules though, and only re registered to contact mods etc. Of course you can do what you want, but it would be fundamentally unfair to punish people for being initially unaware of how to navigate this complicated appeals system you have. I didn't even 'see' the forum charter to be honest, I just looked at the threads.

Do you still think I was 'trolling'? And if so, on what basis? To me that's the most infuriating thing, how is holding a minority opinion and expressing it politely and having a friendly discussion with other posters about it on an internet site dedicated to the exchange of views 'trolling'? Particularly when I qualified it almost every time I posted it with calming words?

Khannie

Ignorance of the rules only gets you so far. Whether you were trolling or not isn't actually hugely relevant (and has zero to do with your ban). You were told not to bring it up on thread again and did, then you re-registered repeatedly to circumvent the ban. Just one re-reg is normally met with a permanent ban. What I have decided on, in light of not knowing the rules, is a comparatively short ban. I feel like it is a reasonable compromise and I am hoping you would feel that too.

To be honest I'm not sure whether you were trolling or not. If I was confident that you were trolling I would have closed this discussion at the offset and left the permanent ban in place. You've been polite throughout despite feeling that you were treated harshly and I appreciate that.

After all of that though, a ban still stands and I stand by it. It stands because you ignored clear moderator direction then re-registered another *two* accounts to circumvent that ban (possibly 3). It is obvious with only a modicum of thought that re-registering to circumvent a ban is contrary to the purpose of the ban in the first place, whether or not you know the explicit rules.

In light of not knowing the rules (and with RuggieBear suggesting a reduced sentence) and that you've been polite throughout I'm prepared to reduce the ban from permanent to 6 weeks. I wont be budging from that.

I'm going to be explicit here so there is no confusion in future: You need to read the FAQ and the charter of any forum you intend posting in.

forlorndonkey

Khannie wrote: »

Ignorance of the rules only gets you so far. Whether you were trolling or not isn't actually hugely relevant (and has zero to do with your ban). You were told not to bring it up on thread again and did.

How is that not self contradictory? What needs to be cleared up is whether I can discuss my opinion on who should play at 7 for Ireland politely and cordially with other members of that section without being called a 'troll'. Can you please explain how you have any doubt at all that I was not 'trolling' in light of my post above where I detailed how I conducted the discussion?

I just don't understand how you can read that and say that wasn't a moderator getting above his station? Let alone think that I was 'trolling'? Surely we can discuss who we want to play for the Irish national rugby team in the rugby section? Because when my ban is up I don't want a repeat of this ridiculous situation.

For example, lets say I thought that Declan Kidney is a terrible manager, would that be ban worthy? Or that Paul O Connel is overrated? Or Brian O Driscoll is past it?

Where is the line so we all know not to cross it? There need to be clear guidelines on this specific matter, and having read the charter I see none that could explain RuggieBears actions:

Charter wrote:

This is a Rugby Discussion Forum, please try to remember that different people will have different opinions. Just because someone has an opinion different to yours doesn't mean they are trolling. At the same time, please try to refrain from posting one line posts stating "Player X is crap". Do try to give reasons and stimulate discussion.

Bolded in original, not added by the way.

Khannie

Before I start out here, let me be really clear about something that I don't think you're picking up on, but is central to the discussion:

Your ban has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion. The first ban you got was for arguing with a moderator (in breach of the forum charter). The second ban you got was for re-registering a second (and then third) account (in breach of the site-wide rules).

Under normal circumstances, the re-registering of a second, then third account would result in a permanent ban (it is obvious from taking the action of re-registering that it is intended to circumvent a ban, and therefore any argument of ignorance of the rules is irrelevant in that case). To be honest I think I'm being really, *really* lenient reducing it to 6 weeks.

If you had been banned for trolling when you weren't trolling then we could have a discussion about the content of your posts for sure. You were not banned for trolling. The title of the thread you have started here is misleading and factually incorrect.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

How is that not self contradictory?

I don't quite understand how.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

What needs to be cleared up is whether I can discuss my opinion on who should play at 7 for Ireland politely and cordially with other members of that section without being called a 'troll'.

Moderators have a tough job. They need to keep an eye for trolls in a forum. Trolls exist. When people come along saying lots of things that are likely to cause a rise, it raises a "potential troll" flag for them. When that persons post count is low, then have little to measure them against. If you are incorrectly accused of trolling and told not to post in thread again, you need only drop the moderator a PM saying "honest guv, I'm not trolling" and they're likely to take it at face value.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

Can you please explain how you have any doubt at all that I was not 'trolling' in light of my post above where I detailed how I conducted the discussion?

You put forward your argument clearly. Some doubt remains for me, though I think it unlikely at this stage that you are a troll. I don't want to go into it any further to be honest except to say that I hope when your ban is up you enjoy posting in the Rugby forum again. I think you can add to that forum.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

I just don't understand how you can read that and say that wasn't a moderator getting above his station?

He made a judgement call based on the arguments you put forward. That you were polite is not in question. Trolls can be polite. He is absolutely correct to make a call and you saying that he's getting "above his station" is pretty rude to be honest. Was his call correct? Time will tell. It's not terribly important though. Even if the call was wrong (and we all occasionally make wrong judgement calls), he was right to make it.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

Let alone think that I was 'trolling'? Surely we can discuss who we want to play for the Irish national rugby team in the rugby section?

Of course you can discuss these things in the Rugby section. That's part of what it's for. You are not free to argue in thread with a moderator and you are not free to re-register accounts to circumvent a ban. These are the things you received the ban for, not your opinion.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

Because when my ban is up I don't want a repeat of this ridiculous situation.

You and I both.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

For example, lets say I thought that Declan Kidney is a terrible manager, would that be ban worthy? Or that Paul O Connel is overrated? Or Brian O Driscoll is past it?

None of those things are ban worthy. You're free to discuss players / managers strengths and weaknesses once you don't break the forum charter, or aren't slanderous / libellous.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

Where is the line so we all know not to cross it? There need to be clear guidelines on this specific matter, and having read the charter I see none that could explain RuggieBears actions

Again, you weren't banned for your opinion. RuggieBear made a call based on the limited information that was available to him. If you disagree with a moderation call he (or any other moderator) makes in future, you need only drop them a PM and explain why you think they've made a mistake.

forlorndonkey

So was my ban shortened to 6 weeks in the end or what's going on?

And for the record Wallace was outstanding yesterday. Apparantly the notion that he could play to that level was 'trolling'.

Re the 'a mod getting above his station comment'.. A cursory read of the threads in the Rugby section reveals RuggieBear micromanaging conversations and threads, most of the time what he's censoring isn't against the rules at all. The guy's like Mubarak.

Of course if you deny this I can pull absolutely loads of examples up and post them here. The point is he's a bad moderator and needs a stern speaking to. Mindlessly backing the guy up regardless of what he does just exacerbates tensions and drives users away from the forum. The ball's in your court, but in this case keeping on the good side of volunteers who work for free will drive down your business and isn't in Boards.ie's best interests.

Khannie

forlorndonkey wrote: »

So was my ban shortened to 6 weeks in the end or what's going on?

Read the thread.

forlorndonkey wrote: »

he's a bad moderator and needs a stern speaking to.

You're a poster that obviously needs a stern speaking to, so here it comes: Comparing the moderator to Mubarak is highly insulting. Saying he's above his station is highly insulting. Then accusing me of "mindlessly" backing the guy up tops it all off. I have reported your post for the admins to deal with.

forlorndonkey

Khannie wrote: »

Read the thread.



You're a poster that obviously needs a stern speaking to, so here it comes: Comparing the moderator to Mubarak is highly insulting. Saying he's above his station is highly insulting. Then accusing me of "mindlessly" backing the guy up tops it all off. I have reported your post for the admins to deal with.

I feel like your reaction is disingenous. You know full well that there is a huge difference between calling names and constructive criticism. I was making a serious point. It will be interesting to see how you react to it. Will you take constructive criticism on board and take measures to improve this site for the users, or will you throw your toys out of the pram? So far it isn't looking good I have to say.

The Brian Cowen 'how dare you' defence in the face of legitimate complaints doesn't wash here I'm afraid. Like I said, I can pull up a boatload of examples of what I was talking about and provide links too.

For the record, in case you haven't noticed yet, I found being called a 'troll' hugely bloody insulting. That didn't seem to bother you though did it? Despite my showing in this very thread that in every single post I defused any potential altercations before they even happened, you say you're 'still not sure'. Frankly that isn't good enough and if you're wondering where the 'mindless backing' complaint (not insult: complaint) came from that's an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

It doesn't bode well that your reaction to reports of a moderator abusing his power is to disregard the complaint and feign offence The correct reaction would be concern that one member was spoiling a section of the site for others, and to investigate it. Instead you have reacted by 'notifying the admin' that someone has called you names.

Get your act together.


And by the way, I assumed you were in Admin, if you aren't then I'd like to appeal your decision to one as per the flow chart.

Khannie

forlorndonkey wrote: »

I feel like your reaction is disingenous. You know full well that there is a huge difference between calling names and constructive criticism.

Yes I do. Your post was not constructive criticism however. You compared the mod to a dictator for doing his job, said he was above his station for doing his job, then said that I had mindlessly agreed with him when you have no evidence of any mindless agreement. I think you have a thing or two to learn about constructive criticism.

Your soap-boxed point about trolling is, for the umpteenth time, not relevant. This thread is nothing to do with that and has nothing to do with the ban that you are appealing. As such I haven't and wont be discussing it.

forlorndonkey

Khannie wrote: »

Yes I do. Your post was not constructive criticism however. You compared the mod to a dictator for doing his job, said he was above his station for doing his job,

No.

My point was he abuses his power regularly. He does not do his job. That's the problem. That's what I was saying.

then said that I had mindlessly agreed with him when you have no evidence of any mindless agreement.

Mindless agreement that I was trolling in the face of absolutely overwhelming evidence. I showed how in virtually every post I made I took great care to avoid offence. How's that for an example?

Your soap-boxed point about trolling is, for the umpteenth time, not relevant. This thread is nothing to do with that and has nothing to do with the ban that you are appealing. As such I haven't and wont be discussing it.

First of all, as I detailed in this post, it has a lot to with this whole situation. Secondly, if you call that a soapbox point how about your referring to my serious and legitimate complaints as 'insults'?

Trojan

I've reviewed this thread, and edited the thread title to more accurately reflect the issue.

I do not see any reason to reduce or rescind the ban, but what I do see is plenty of reasons to extend it or even make it permanent.

However, I think that is unnecessary, because I think as soon as forlorndonkey is back in the Rugby Forum (s)he will immediately commit a further bannable offense, for which there will be a permanent ban from the forum.

In summary:

• the original ban is upheld
• this is your last warning: your next ban from Rugby will be permanent
• do not insult volunteer mods (or anyone) on this site, even if you disagree vehemently with them