Rugby Forum Ban

Aidric

I would like to appeal an excessive 7 day ban for this by the moderator Ruggie Bear. The reason given for the ban was attacking the poster and not the post. I have made it quite clear in PM exchanges that this was not an attack on the poster, as is quite evident from the wording and tone of the post. Indeed I wasn't the only poster to pull up this post. I was however the only poster to be actioned. This is wholly inconsistent moderating and reeks of a personal vendetta.
The moderator implied that I should have reported the post.

you should have reported the post.
you had a go at the poster. that is against the rules.

Why exactly would I report the post, it wasn't offensive just ridiculous. The poster made a similar post after the Italy game and was pulled up also. I guess you could say he was trolling but the post was so ridiculous as to not be taken serious. That was all I was intimating in the post that earned me a ban. I wasn't offensive or attacking in my tone. I simply said it was best to ignore the post.
The final PM from the moderator was this bizarre response.

You discussed the poster and not the post.

He has now rowed back from his position that I attacked the poster and is instead saying I 'discussed the poster'.

I wish for this ban to be reversed or at the very least reduced.

Thanks for your time,
Aidric

Khannie

So I gave this one quite a bit of consideration. On the face of it and examined as an isolated incident the ban does seem harsh. If it were your first ban I would be inclined to reduce it significantly. Then I went and checked your ban history and spoke with the mods. It seems clear that you're a constant source of trouble in the forum. This is your fifth ban from the Rugby forum and from 3 different mods. Not so good.

Down to the post itself: Again, on the face of it it seems innocuous enough. However, when you examine the post a bit more carefully it is actually a nasty, belittling post directed squarely at another user. Given that you had 4 previous bans (and previous history does have a bearing on ban duration), a week off seems entirely appropriate to me and I'm going to uphold it.

Aidric

Khannie wrote: »

So I gave this one quite a bit of consideration..

The stock response doesn't quite bear that one out. The tragedy is I could have wrote your reply before I even received it and that in itself makes a mockery of this supposed DRP.
Is it really too much to ask for a user to have their case dealt with on its merits? It's always the convenient crutch of retrospective posting that leads to bans being upheld. Ignore the fact that this was a ridiculous banning and fall on the moderators side seems to be the status quo.

Khannie wrote: »

On the face of it and examined as an isolated incident the ban does seem harsh.

Glad you agree on that.

Khannie wrote: »

I went and checked your ban history and spoke with the mods. It seems clear that you're a constant source of trouble in the forum. This is your fifth ban from the Rugby forum and from 3 different mods. Not so good..

Indeed, because the mods were really going to back down! For the record I took the responsible decision to stop posting on the Rugby forum for circa 9 months because of differences of views, which lead to many infractions. Before this incident I haven't had an infraction since May 2010. 1 day back on the Rugby forum and an innocuous post leads to a 7 day ban. That is blatant singling out of an individual whilst another poster who made a post expressing the same sentiments as mine walks away without even a warning.

Khannie wrote: »

when you examine the post a bit more carefully it is actually a nasty, belittling post directed squarely at another user. Given that you had 4 previous bans (and previous history does have a bearing on ban duration), a week off seems entirely appropriate to me and I'm going to uphold it.

Please explain how my post belittled ar attacked the user in any way. He posted an off the wall selection that was clearly trolling. I said it was best to ignore it. I didn't resort to namecalling or anything like that.

I guess this all comes down to the fact that I had the temerity to question Rugby Moderators actions in the past and now they will use any excuse, no matter how vague or tenuous it may be to get their claws in.

Khannie

Aidric wrote: »

Is it really too much to ask for a user to have their case dealt with on its merits?

Not at all and that's exactly what I did. Here are the facts as I see them:
You have been banned from the Rugby forum 5 times by 3 different mods. This rules out the "vendetta" argument.
Your post is in breach of the charter.
You have a heap of infractions. So many in fact that I wasn't bothered going through them to count how many were from the Rugby forum. Clearly quite a few of them are though.
While a week of a ban possibly seems harsh initially, investigation of the evidence in its entirity leads me to believe that you are a constant source of trouble.
Since you are a constant source of trouble you receive bans that are of longer duration than a normal poster. This is entirely justified.

So that's how I came to my "stock" decision. The week ban stands. You are free to appeal it to admin level of course.

Aidric

Khannie wrote: »

Not at all and that's exactly what I did. Here are the facts as I see them:
You have been banned from the Rugby forum 5 times by 3 different mods. This rules out the "vendetta" argument.
Your post is in breach of the charter.
You have a heap of infractions. So many in fact that I wasn't bothered going through them to count how many were from the Rugby forum. Clearly quite a few of them are though.
While a week of a ban possibly seems harsh initially, investigation of the evidence in its entirity leads me to believe that you are a constant source of trouble.
Since you are a constant source of trouble you receive bans that are of longer duration than a normal poster. This is entirely justified.

So that's how I came to my "stock" decision. The week ban stands. You are free to appeal it to admin level of course.

Firstly I appreciate that you have taken time to review this case.

Could you address this part of my last post please?

Please explain how my post belittled ar attacked the user in any way. He posted an off the wall selection that was clearly trolling. I said it was best to ignore it. I didn't resort to namecalling or anything like that.

I ask this paricularly in light of the fact that another poster called tolensc's post 'delusional' without action being taken. I didn't at any point get personal. Instead I said it was best ignore the post as it had no grounding in logic imo.

I further object to your contention that I am a constant source of trouble. Did you read my last post at all or just conveniently ignore it?

Khannie

I haven't forgotten about you, just very busy. I'll get back to you at some stage today or tomorrow to answer your questions.

Khannie

Aidric wrote: »

Firstly I appreciate that you have taken time to review this case.

Thanks.

Aidric wrote: »

Could you address this part of my last post please?

Sure.

Let's break the post down a little: You start off with the users username, so it's obviously discussing the poster (this is the primary issue). You go on to suggest that they should be ignored (belittling). Not once do you actually constructively discuss their post.

On the trolling thing: Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. That's not really for you to decide. Making that decision and acting on it would be classed as "back seat modding". If you think a poster is trolling, just report the post.

Now your post isn't the worst post in the universe. I'll grant you that. However, given your history, tolerance levels (mine included) are going to be very, very low.

Aidric wrote: »

I ask this paricularly in light of the fact that another poster called tolensc's post 'delusional' without action being taken. I didn't at any point get personal. Instead I said it was best ignore the post as it had no grounding in logic imo.

On the delusional thing: Their post was generally constructive / useful / put forward a reasonable rebuttal. Yours contributed nothing. I take your point that they addressed the poster at one point. I will look into that further.

Aidric wrote: »

I further object to your contention that I am a constant source of trouble. Did you read my last post at all or just conveniently ignore it?

I read your last post very carefully. It is my carefully considered view that you are a constant source of trouble. Here is why:

You have 6 pages of infractions from a variety of forums (PI, After Hours, Limerick City, Soccer, Rugby). You also have a long ban list from several different forums. Your bans from Rugby are from a variety of different moderators. This more than likely rules out the Rugby mods vendetta argument in my opinion. I decided to investigate the matter further though because it's a serious allegation. However, it is clear to me from reading some of the posts that you were infracted for that they were entirely reasonable infractions. You may object to the contention that you are a constant source of trouble, but your record and your posts both fly in the face of that contention.

The ban stands. This is my final word on the matter. If you wish to appeal to admin level, feel free to do so.

Aidric

Khannie wrote: »

Let's break the post down a little: You start off with the users username, so it's obviously discussing the poster (this is the primary issue). You go on to suggest that they should be ignored (belittling). Not once do you actually constructively discuss their post.

I did use the guys name, yes. I didn't however belittle him. I inferred that his post had no standing in logic, ergo it was best to ignore it.

Khannie wrote: »

If you think a poster is trolling, just report the post..

I'll refer you to my OP.

Why exactly would I report the post, it wasn't offensive just ridiculous

Khannie wrote: »

On the delusional thing: Their post was generally constructive / useful / put forward a reasonable rebuttal.

Rrrright. So saying someone is delusional is considered constructive now. I'll bear that in mind.

Khannie wrote: »

I read your last post very carefully. It is my carefully considered view that you are a constant source of trouble.

constant - adjective - continuing without pause or letup; unceasing

I'll again refer you to a previous post.

Before this incident I haven't had an infraction since May 2010. 1 day back on the Rugby forum and an innocuous post leads to a 7 day ban.

So that doesn't really stack up your constant argument.

Khannie wrote: »

The ban stands. This is my final word on the matter. If you wish to appeal to admin level, feel free to do so.

Appeal to who? Trojan, another Rugby mod. I don't need to go further with that.

I have highlighted two instance in this post where you have ignored what I said in previous posts on this thread. This doesn't exactly fill me with confidence surrounding this whole DRP. My considered opinion is that it's a case of back up the moderators at all costs and throw in a few key phrases here and there.

Please close this thread. It was exactly the waste of time I envisaged.

Asiaprod

Aidric wrote: »

Please close this thread. It was exactly the waste of time I envisaged.

As you wish, closed as resolved.