Banned for starting a Thread in Irish Economy Subforum.

deise go deo

This is the second time I have been banned from Politics by Eliot Rosewater in two Weeks.

The first time the Ban was overturned, Now he has banned me for starting this thread.


The role of the Irish Language in Irelands Economy.

What with calling all arguments against your position "rants", putting useless in quotation marks and throwing multiple sources out to give an answer to the question you propose, this thread isn't intended for discussion but rather to push your views on others. And it was obviously set up now because the other place you were doing that, up to this afternoon, was locked.

Banned for a week for soapboxing.

Thread closed.

/mod.

What have I done to deserve a ban?

Saopboxing? Starting a thread with sources supporting your position is soapboxing? What kind of discussion is acceptable then. Is nodding in agreement with this mods own personal views the only form of acceptable discussion?

Calling all arguments against my position "rants''.

I was simply mentioning that there have been frequent rants that have made Irish out to be useless. This is true, you dont have to look very far to find them. Kevin Myers coloum in the Indo would be a good place to start.
I did not claim, nor would I claim that all arguments against my position are rants.

''throwing multiple sources out to give an answer to the question you propose''

So there is something wrong with backing up your arguments with sources now? What next?
The common discourse, as pointed out in one of my sources, has been that Irish is useless. The thread I started was intended to challenge that conception, I felt it necessary to back up such a challenge with as many and as valid sources as I possible could. What is wrong with that?


Putting the word useless in quotation markes.

Yes, The point of the thread was to challenge the common perception of Irish being useless, so I put the word useless in quotation markes, Can someone please explain why that deserves a ban? Or even merits being raised by a mod?


I don't believe I have done anything wrong.

In my last thread complaining about Eliot banning me from politics I claimed that his personal biase was interfeering with his modding of this topic, I would like to repeat that claim again here. I think the motivation for this ban is nothing more than Eliots personal Bias.



Edit: And in relation to his accusation of soapboxing in the other thread.

Soapboxing?

I have tried to clear the air and own up to my mistakes in that thread in the hopes of generating a better quality of discussion, it was thrown back in my face.

Scofflaw

deise, you don't really post about anything else but Irish, and you don't accept anyone else's views on the matter.

As for Eliot's motivation, I can assure you no personal motivation is required to see you as a problem poster. There's a 260-page trainwreck in the forum with your posts all over it - a sixth of all the posts on the thread, and increasing towards the end of the thread. When that thread was closed, you immediately opened a new thread.

Boards.ie is not a platform for your personal crusade for the Irish language.

moderately,
Scofflaw

deise go deo

Scofflaw wrote: »

deise, you don't really post about anything else but Irish, and you don't accept anyone else's views on the matter.

As for Eliot's motivation, I can assure you no personal motivation is required to see you as a problem poster. There's a 260-page trainwreck in the forum with your posts all over it - a sixth of all the posts on the thread, and increasing towards the end of the thread. When that thread was closed, you immediately opened a new thread.

Boards.ie is not a platform for your personal crusade for the Irish language.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I am interested in Irish, Is that a crime? I also happen to post on many random things in AH, Have contributed to the count in FilTar and play a part in an active story about Zombies. What difference dose it make what interests me?

Now, if someone can show me what I have done to deserve a ban please do so because I am at a loss to see how this is in any way justified.



What was wrong with my OP? Was the ban justified? That is really the only relevant question here. One that has yet to be answered.

Scofflaw

deise go deo wrote: »

I am interested in Irish, Is that a crime? I also happen to post on many random things in AH, Have contributed to the count in FilTar and play a part in an active story about Zombies. What difference dose it make what interests me?

Now, if someone can show me what I have done to deserve a ban please do so because I am at a loss to see how this is in any way justified.



What was wrong with my OP? Was the ban justified? That is really the only relevant question here. One that has yet to be answered.

There's no crime in liking Irish, but to use the Politics forum to endlessly post about the same subject from the same angle is a problem for the forum. Other people also like Irish, but they're not here and you are.

Can you see that there is any possibility that constant posting on the same topic from the same angle could be an issue for the forum? Would you accept to any degree that you're regularly involved in repetitive trench warfare threads about the Irish language?

Those are the important questions, I'm afraid.

moderately,
Scofflaw

deise go deo

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no crime in liking Irish, but to use the Politics forum to endlessly post about the same subject from the same angle is a problem for the forum. Other people also like Irish, but they're not here and you are.

Can you see that there is any possibility that constant posting on the same topic from the same angle could be an issue for the forum? Would you accept to any degree that you're regularly involved in repetitive trench warfare threads about the Irish language?

Those are the important questions, I'm afraid.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Indeed I can, Hence the relevance of the link I provided in my op to the Is Irish a dead Language thread.

I have been accused of soapboxing, I dispute that, Not only in the thread I have been banned from but in general.

The last time I was banned by Eliot, my disputing of his claim that I was soapboxing was upheld, with a warning. Since then I have taken comments about my actions on board and have tried to clear the air, that others in that thread were unwilling to meet me halfway is not my fault.

Hence my claim that Eliot is biased, He seems to have no problem banning me, in fact it seems he has just been waiting for the opportunity since he was overturned the last time, but when it comes to those who happen to agree with his personal opinion, no action is taken despite the most obvious soapboxing and ignoring of others.

As for immediately opening a new thread, I have been questioned in the past about why I have started a thread when the 'Is Irish a dead language' thread was still open, To be quite honest I fully expected any thread on the topic of Irish the be merged with that thread no matter what it was I was trying to discuss, as that thread was such a disaster I felt it would be a pointless exercise.

With that thread being closed that threat was gone and so I could start a new thread on an area that held a specific interest for me without it being dragged into the same repetitive loop, it was a chance for a fresh start so to speak.

Now, was the ban justified on the grounds of soapboxing?

Scofflaw

deise go deo wrote: »

Indeed I can, Hence the relevance of the link I provided in my op to the Is Irish a dead Language thread.

I have been accused of soapboxing, I dispute that, Not only in the thread I have been banned from but in general.

The last time I was banned by Eliot, my disputing of his claim that I was soapboxing was upheld, with a warning. Since then I have taken comments about my actions on board and have tried to clear the air, that others in that thread were unwilling to meet me halfway is not my fault.

Hence my claim that Eliot is biased, He seems to have no problem banning me, in fact it seems he has just been waiting for the opportunity since he was overturned the last time, but when it comes to those who happen to agree with his personal opinion, no action is taken despite the most obvious soapboxing and ignoring of others.

As for immediately opening a new thread, I have been questioned in the past about why I have started a thread when the 'Is Irish a dead language' thread was still open, To be quite honest I fully expected any thread on the topic of Irish the be merged with that thread no matter what it was I was trying to discuss, as that thread was such a disaster I felt it would be a pointless exercise.

With that thread being closed that threat was gone and so I could start a new thread on an area that held a specific interest for me without it being dragged into the same repetitive loop, it was a chance for a fresh start so to speak.

Now, was the ban justified on the grounds of soapboxing?

In my view, absolutely. And a reminder of Dades' comments last time, since you've drawn attention to them:

Dades wrote:

So let this be an opinion with a caveat. While the thread in question (imo) might not be classic soapboxing, I've noted your more recent contributions to the "Is Irish a dead language?" are more akin to my definition of soapboxing. Which in my book is ignoring others' points, deflection and pedantry.

moderately,
Scofflaw

deise go deo

Scofflaw wrote: »

In my view, absolutely. And a reminder of Dades' comments last time, since you've drawn attention to them:



moderately,
Scofflaw

Indeed, Dades did give me a warning, and I acted upon it. Why is that being ignored?

I would like to request an Admin take a look at this, I do not accept that starting a thread is soapboxing.

Scofflaw

deise go deo wrote: »

Indeed, Dades did give me a warning, and I acted upon it. Why is that being ignored?

I would like to request an Admin take a look at this, I do not accept that starting a thread is soapboxing.

You're entitled to do so, but perhaps I should clarify that the issue isn't simply "starting a thread". It's starting another thread on the same subject a couple of minutes after the one you were soapboxing on was closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

deise go deo

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're entitled to do so, but perhaps I should clarify that the issue isn't simply "starting a thread". It's starting another thread on the same subject a couple of minutes after the one you were soapboxing on was closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

A few hours later in fairness.

Please explain to me how exactly I was soapboxing the other thread over the last few pages, after Dades's warning.

I was not soapboxing at the End of the Is Irish a dead Language thread. Another poster was trolling the thread. Something that was consistently ignored on the part of the mods.

I was banned for soapboxing before, that ban was overturned, It was decided that I was in fact not soapboxing then. Dades gave a warning to the effect that in his opinion, I was close to being what he considers soapboxing in the Is Irish a dead language thread. I took note of that warning and acted on it.

Now I am again being accused of soapboxing. I am fed up with this. Ban me or don't, I honestly don't care at this stage.

I would suggest that If your going to ban people for soapboxing, there should at least be agreement on what that is.

nesf

deise the issue is that you've a stance on a subject, that's fine you're entitled to it, but you're attempting to make everyone else agree with that stance with absolutely no room for compromise on your part. The only thing your new thread was going to do was to create a mirror image of the thread that was locked with the pro-Irish in one trench and the anti-Irish in the other with neither side willing to compromise and meet in the middle.

That's the core issue, it isn't a debate it's a shouting match. We're watching people on both sides of this debate (as you probably know I'm pretty pro-Irish so wouldn't allow an anti-Irish crusade by the Politics mods to go on).


The other thread was locked because we're sick of the soapboxing by both sides on this issue and don't want to see this in the forum. Your new thread would simply result in more soapboxing from both sides and recreate the problem we originally locked the thread to deal with. If one of the anti-Irish soapboxers started a thread like your's from the opposite perspective so soon after the other thread was locked they'd have gotten identical treatment.

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

deise the issue is that you've a stance on a subject, that's fine you're entitled to it, but you're attempting to make everyone else agree with that stance with absolutely no room for compromise on your part. The only thing your new thread was going to do was to create a mirror image of the thread that was locked with the pro-Irish in one trench and the anti-Irish in the other with neither side willing to compromise and meet in the middle.

That's the core issue, it isn't a debate it's a shouting match. We're watching people on both sides of this debate (as you probably know I'm pretty pro-Irish so wouldn't allow an anti-Irish crusade by the Politics mods to go on).


The other thread was locked because we're sick of the soapboxing by both sides on this issue and don't want to see this in the forum. Your new thread would simply result in more soapboxing from both sides and recreate the problem we originally locked the thread to deal with. If one of the anti-Irish soapboxers started a thread like your's from the opposite perspective so soon after the other thread was locked they'd have gotten identical treatment.

I am not trying to get everyone to agree with my position, There are accusations being thrown around here that have not been supported.

My intention is to have a debate on the Issue of Irish, several posters have thrown around unsubstantiated claims about Irish, my intention has been to challenge those claims with a well argued point. I do not expect people to change their opinions, though I do have a problem with people constantly being allowed to spread misinformation.

I have no interest in soapboxing in any thread, and I find the continued vague references to it to be annoying, especially when no examples being provided of this supposed soapboxing, and why it is soapboxing in your opinion.

This is what Dades consider's to be soapboxing.

Which in my book is ignoring others' points, deflection and pedantry.

I admit freely that I did engage in that activity before, though I don't believe I was the worst in that regard from that thread.

I took the warning I have been given in the last thread here seriously, and have acted upon it. So I have to ask, where have I engaged in soapboxing since that warning, and why has my attempt Here to correct that mistake, and to move forward been ignored?

nesf

deise go deo wrote: »

My intention is to have a debate on the Issue of Irish, several posters have thrown around unsubstantiated claims about Irish, my intention has been to challenge those claims with a well argued point.

Which is effectively soapboxing, i.e. not going in to debate an issue but to argue solely for one side of it with no initial intention of compromising on the issue. Soapboxing is very common, most of us have some issue with which they do it (for me it's mental health). We don't mind people getting up on their soapbox every now and then but if we ask someone to stop doing it we expect them to stop doing it. We decide when it becomes a problem, i.e. when threads are being derailed because of it.

To give you an idea of where we draw the line I'd use this quote:

There's another form of "soapboxing" - and that's simply taking up inches of front-page column-space, so it's hard to find other articles and posts such as Gilbert & Sullivan, and posts drop off the front page more quickly.

It's when a poster dominates a thread through volume while on a soapbox that we have an issue.

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

Which is effectively soapboxing, i.e. not going in to debate an issue but to argue solely for one side of it with no initial intention of compromising on the issue. Soapboxing is very common, most of us have some issue with which they do it (for me it's mental health). We don't mind people getting up on their soapbox every now and then but if we ask someone to stop doing it we expect them to stop doing it. We decide when it becomes a problem, i.e. when threads are being derailed because of it.

You have ignored the second half of my post, I would like an answer to that.

I have no problem with compromising, I showed an example of it in that thread, but I will not compromise my point of view for people spreading misinformation, which is what most of my arguments were against in that thread. If a poster wants to take the topic seriously and discuss it rationally (Which several posters on both sides were happy to take the time to do in that thread, to be fair) then I have no problem having a proper discussion with them and am happy to consider the points they make, but I have no time for people who's only interest is in flaming the thread with exaggerated claims and attempts to personalize discussion.

To give you an idea of where we draw the line I'd use this quote:



It's when a poster dominates a thread through volume while on a soapbox that we have an issue.

I have never posted just to knock other peoples posts off the front page quicker, and more to the point, you have not even tried to show that I have done such a thing, I resent that allegation as it is completely unfounded.

nesf

deise go deo wrote: »

I have never posted just to knock other peoples posts off the front page quicker, and more to the point, you have not even tried to show that I have done such a thing, I resent that allegation as it is completely unfounded.

I'm tired so I'll restrict myself to answering this bit as I feel it answers most of the rest of your questions. The allegation isn't that you intend to do that but that you unintentionally do that. If we thought you intentionally did it we'd be taking a far harsher line with you. Your behaviour results in X but we're not saying you intend X to happen or that it is your goal.

Anyway, I've explained the why which was my goal. I don't have the energy or inclination to continue arguing this with you and as such am leaving it at this. You can take my words on board or not, I don't care but they explain the rationale behind what's happened.

I'd advise you to take this up with the Admins if you want to argue your case further.

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

I'm tired so I'll restrict myself to answering this bit as I feel it answers most of the rest of your questions. The allegation isn't that you intend to do that but that you unintentionally do that. If we thought you intentionally did it we'd be taking a far harsher line with you. Your behaviour results in X but we're not saying you intend X to happen or that it is your goal.

Anyway, I've explained the why which was my goal. I don't have the energy or inclination to continue arguing this with you and as such am leaving it at this. You can take my words on board or not, I don't care but they explain the rationale behind what's happened.

I'd advise you to take this up with the Admins if you want to argue your case further.

My supposed intention to soapbox is part of why Eliot Banned me.

What with calling all arguments against your position "rants", putting useless in quotation marks and throwing multiple sources out to give an answer to the question you propose, this thread isn't intended for discussion but rather to push your views on others. And it was obviously set up now because the other place you were doing that, up to this afternoon, was locked.

Banned for a week for soapboxing.

Thread closed.

/mod.

So do you agree with this claim, and if you do, can I now expect a far harsher line? Eliot banned me for what he believed my intention to be. I have to say I find it odd that you are now saying that my intention is not at issue when it was clearly mentioned by Eliot when he banned me.


I am active in that thread, that alone does not mean I have been soapboxing.


Yes, I have already requested an Admin take a look at this.







Several accusations were made by Eliot when he banned me,


1 He claimed that I called all arguments made against my position rants.

Do you believe that accusation was correct?

2 He said I put the word Useless in quotation marks.

Do you now believe that there was anything wrong with putting the word useless in quotation marks?

3 He said that I provided several sources to back up my argument.

Do you now believe that there was something wrong with this?

4 He claimed that my intention in setting up the new thread was to push my views on others.

Do you believe that this accusation was correct?

5 He claimed that I had been soapboxing in the 'Is Irish a Dead Language' Thread up until it was closed.

Scofflaw has also made the claim that I was soapboxing in that thread.

I have asked this several times and I am still waiting for an answer. I can appreciate that you are Tired NESF, But if I am being banned for soapboxing, or intending to soapbox, surely the answer to this question is fairly central.

I admit freely that I did engage in that activity before, though I don't believe I was the worst in that regard from that thread.

I took the warning I have been given in the last thread here seriously, and have acted upon it. So I have to ask, where have I engaged in soapboxing since that warning, and why has my attempt Here to correct that mistake, and to move forward been ignored?

I do not believe that I have engaged in soapboxing in the 'Is Irish a dead language thread since I was warned here some weeks ago, Both Eliot and Scofflaw have claimed that I have, and that seems to be the justification for this current ban, yet every time I ask where this has been the case, I am ignored. If it cannot be shown that I have engaged in soapboxing since I was warned by Dades in the last dispute resolution thread here, then where is the justification for this ban?




I have to say it seems odd to me that a question so central to the whole dispute resolution, ie was I actually soapboxing after the warning given by Dades in the last thread here should be ignored.








Just to say what my perception of this affair has been, it seems that the mods have engaged in fudging around the edges rather than tackling the issue head on, this I feel is the case because of what is in my opinion the central issue to this case being consistently ignored, and a mod, in an effort to defend the ban handed down, directly contradicting the reasoning for that ban.

I have to ask, following from the thread in feedback where there was severe criticism from some of my previous ban being overturned, ( Here ) because of a perceived disempowerment of Politics mods, and the future effectiveness of their modding being affected by having their decisions overturned in the DFR process, (as outlined Here ) is it possible that my case is being unduly affected by wider issues not directly related to it?

If that is the case, then I think it is entirely unfair, this case should be assessed on its own merits and should not be affected by wider issues in the Politics forum.

nesf

Case and point: You can't stop arguing. You respond to a message from me saying I was done arguing with you with a long argumentative post. This is the kind of disruptive argumentative behaviour that got you in trouble in the first place.

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

Case and point: You can't stop arguing. You respond to a message from me saying I was done arguing with you with a long argumentative post. This is the kind of disruptive argumentative behaviour that got you in trouble in the first place.

And again the issue of this thread has been ignored.:(

The post was mainly for the benefit of the Admin.

Do you expect anything less than a long argumentative post when someone feels they have been banned unfairly and their grievances are effectively ignored in the DRF thread?

nesf

deise go deo wrote: »

And again the issue of this thread has been ignored.:(

The post was mainly for the benefit of the Admin.

Do you expect anything less than a long argumentative post when someone feels they have been banned unfairly and their grievances are effectively ignored in the DRF thread?

The issue for me is that you're arguing against the guy explaining why you were banned, i.e. the one explaining how you can avoid such bans in the future. Instead of listening you protest your innocence or argue you did not intend to do X or whatever. This is part of the reason you ended up banned in the first place (i.e. not listening and learning).

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

The issue for me is that you're arguing against the guy explaining why you were banned, i.e. the one explaining how you can avoid such bans in the future. Instead of listening you protest your innocence or argue you did not intend to do X or whatever. This is part of the reason you ended up banned in the first place (i.e. not listening and learning).

You explained why I was banned by contradicting the reasoning given for the ban by the mod in the first place.

I do protest my innocence, and as yet no one has answered the questions I have asked as to my guilt.
I have already shown that I was willing to listen and learn from the warning I was given here previously, and showed an example of it in practice, it seams to me that this is being Ignored.

I am being accused of soapboxing. I am saying that such an accusation is unfair because since the last thread here, and the warning I was given in it, I have not engaged in soapboxing.

If you can show me where I have soapboxed since that warning, and explain why you see that as soapboxing, I am happy to learn from it, But until that happens I will not accept that I have been soapboxing, and even if I did it would be practically impossible for me to learn from it anyway.

Dades

While the definition of soapboxing may be somewhat vague, surely its covers the immediate opening of a new identical-in-all-but-name thread by the main protagonist of a monster thread that got so unwieldy, tension-filled and repetitive that it had to be closed?

deise go deo

Dades wrote: »

While the definition of soapboxing may be somewhat vague, surely its covers the immediate opening of a new identical-in-all-but-name thread by the main protagonist of a monster thread that got so unwieldy, tension-filled and repetitive that it had to be closed?

A thread on whether Irish is dead or not, Or more specifically about a series of articles taking the more simplestic arguments against Irish appart. Is a very different thread to one based around the economic value of the Irish language.

However this is not really all that relevant. I have asked several questions about the accusations that were leveled against me, None of those questions have been answered. Why is this?

'ignoring others' points, deflection and pedantry.' That is how you described soapboxing, Tell me who has done the ignoring in this thread? Who has been deflecting? Who has been pedantic here? I think you will find it was not me.


The ban that was imposed on me will be up tommorow. Can the questions I have asked please be answered? I feel that the treatment I have received here has been utterly unfair. I have been consistantly ignored by those who are supposed to take an impartial view and give a fair jugement.

Can an Admin please take a look at this case.

deise go deo

Right, my ban from politics was just lifted, However I still want a response to this thread, I have asked several questions and they have been ignored, that is simply not good enough.

If a decision is not made here then there is nothing to stop this process repeating its self in a few weeks. I would much rather deal with it now.

deise go deo

Can an Admin Please take a look at this case!

deise go deo

Its been over a week, Is anyone actually looking at this case?

Asiaprod

It is being looked at, but you have made this so complex I have a headache just trying to follow you.

If that is the case, then I think it is entirely unfair, this case should be assessed on its own merits and should not be affected by wider issues in the Politics forum.

For the record this post is being judged solely in relation to you, your case and your conduct.

As you may notice from other DRTs, I have little time for long rambling walls of text. There is a reason for that. Simplicity is always best, it cuts out the emotion, which generally works against receiving the desired out come. As you say, you are very passionate about the subject of Irish.

Therefore, please summarize what your problem is for me, without shouting, in compact bullet points, and I will try to explain in similar fashion where we stand on each one.

deise go deo

Asiaprod wrote: »

For the record this post is being judged solely in relation to you, your case and your conduct.

I should hope so, but the conduct of the mods so far in this thread makes me question that.

As you may notice from other DRTs, I have little time for long rambling walls of text. There is a reason for that. Simplicity is always best, it cuts out the emotion, which generally works against receiving the desired out come. As you say, you are very passionate about the subject of Irish.

Therefore, please summarize what your problem is for me, without shouting, in compact bullet points, and I will try to explain in similar fashion where we stand on each one.

No Problem, A Mod who had previously banned me unfairly for soapboxing, again banned me for soapboxing, this time for starting a thread


Several accusations were made by Eliot when he banned me,


1 He claimed that I called all arguments made against my position rants.

Do you believe that accusation was correct?

2 He said I put the word Useless in quotation marks.

Do you now believe that there was anything wrong with putting the word useless in quotation marks?

3 He said that I provided several sources to back up my argument.

Do you now believe that there was something wrong with this?

4 He claimed that my intention in setting up the new thread was to push my views on others.

Do you believe that this accusation was correct?

5 He claimed that I had been soapboxing in the 'Is Irish a Dead Language' Thread up until it was closed.

Do you believe that this accusation is fair given my attempt Here to fix past mistakes in that thread?



If they could be answered this could all be cleared up.

I apologize for shouting, but being consistently ignored can be quite frustrating.



*Also, the Help Desk has disappeared from the System drop down list for some reason.

Asiaprod

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, it is Golden week break here in Japan so its family excursion day out. Will get back to you tomorrow.

deise go deo

Asiaprod wrote: »

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, it is Golden week break here in Japan so its family excursion day out. Will get back to you tomorrow.

Take your time, As long as the issue gets resolved in the end, I am happy. If it is not then there is nothing to prevent a repeat performance in a few weeks.

Asiaprod

Sorry for the delay, its holiday season over here.

I have taken considerable time to think on these questions.
What I feel is

1 He claimed that I called all arguments made against my position rants.
Do you believe that accusation was correct?

I believe in the eyes of the Mod and the general user base in that forum that it is easy to see these arguments as rants or implied rants, even if you did not mean them to be such. That is how they came across. Maybe your emotional investment in this issue is too high. To those that do not share your passion it is very easy to interpret these as rants. In the original trainwreak thread you had most of the posts!
From that context I have to agree that that is how it looked.

2 He said I put the word Useless in quotation marks.
Do you now believe that there was anything wrong with putting the word useless in quotation marks?

Again, that depends greatly on the person reading it. Quotation marks can be used for a number of reasons, including to indicate another sense or meaning of words, phrases or parts of text by which one wants the reader to interpret the statement or text than the one initially suggested.
Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words.
I believe your words may have been seen as ironic, or worse they could have been seen as a mark of disrespect to other users posts or views.
Only you really know your intent, others have to guess at it. I can only point out how it came across and on that basis it merits a yes from me.

3 He said that I provided several sources to back up my argument.
Do you now believe that there was something wrong with this?

One or two sources, no. You produced 5 sources. That in effect is the same as shouting, and ends up swamping out any value in the sources quoted. It is also a tactic I have seen other users adopt when they don't really want to or cant discuss the issue at hand.
So again based on how you came across, its a yes here again from me

4 He claimed that my intention in setting up the new thread was to push my views on others.
Do you believe that this accusation was correct?

Again in context, yes I do because of the answer to no 5. And because in the original thread you had 600 posts! And especially, as stated before, because you seem to use the Politics forum to endlessly post about the same subject (Irish) from the same angle. Have you actually ever posted in that forum about anything else?

5 He claimed that I had been soapboxing in the 'Is Irish a Dead Language' Thread up until it was closed.
Do you believe that this accusation is fair given my attempt to fix past mistakes in that thread?

Ah here is the real problem. Yes you have been soapboxing your cause quite a lot, even if it was unintentionally done on your part. Then you decided to stop and act properly. The only problem is how was anyone to know you had changed your approach. Only time would have answered that one I'm afraid.
As soon as that original thread was locked, you came right back and started a new one. That only helped to enforce the accusation of soapboxing and pushing your own agenda. I would have PMed the Mod in question, explained my new position, and asked if it was ok to start a new thread. Why did you not choose that path of least resistance? How could you possibly expect anything other that what happened to happen.

I apologize for shouting, but being consistently ignored can be quite frustrating.

I can understand that, that is why I have gone to lengths to answer you honestly and I believe fairly.

You notice I have accused you of nothing, though I could very easily have done so. My goal is always to fix problems and make Boards an enjoyable experience for everyone.
I have answered based on your approach in that forum. You say you have changed, I am happy to hear that. I hope my comments here will help you further effect that by pointing out how you come across. Please take them onboard so you can enjoy boards better, and hopefully it will prevent that repeat performance in a few weeks.

deise go deo

Asiaprod wrote: »

Sorry for the delay, its holiday season over here.

I have taken considerable time to think on these questions.

Dont worry about it, thanks for the response.

I believe in the eyes of the Mod and the general user base in that forum that it is easy to see these arguments as rants or implied rants, even if you did not mean them to be such. That is how they came across. Maybe your emotional investment in this issue is too high. To those that do not share your passion it is very easy to interpret these as rants. In the original trainwreak thread you had most of the posts!
From that context I have to agree that that is how it looked.

To see what arguments as rants? Maybe I am misreading it but it seems you are referring to my arguments? The issue was that the mod accused me of labeling everyone else's arguments as rants.

Again, that depends greatly on the person reading it. Quotation marks can be used for a number of reasons, including to indicate another sense or meaning of words, phrases or parts of text by which one wants the reader to interpret the statement or text than the one initially suggested.
Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words.
I believe your words may have been seen as ironic, or worse they could have been seen as a mark of disrespect to other users posts or views.
Only you really know your intent, others have to guess at it. I can only point out how it came across and on that basis it merits a yes from me.

My intent was to challenge the common perception that Irish is useless. My use of qutation marks around the word useless in that context was to question the validity of the lable so often used when describing the language.
I accept that it may not have come across that way, but do you think it was fair of the mod to refuse to accept my explanation?

One or two sources, no. You produced 5 sources. That in effect is the same as shouting, and ends up swamping out any value in the sources quoted. It is also a tactic I have seen other users adopt when they don't really want to or cant discuss the issue at hand.
So again based on how you came across, its a yes here again from me

There is a very simple explanation for that. As was referenced in one of the sources I provided. The dominant discourse in that area has been that Irish is useless. You don't have to look very far to see plenty of examples of that opinion in the media or on boards its self. With that in mind, I felt it would be necessary to lead with several sources supporting my contention that Irish may be economicly beneficial to the country, as without them the Idea could all too easily be ignored or rubbished without any serious debate.

Again in context, yes I do because of the answer to no 5. And because in the original thread you had 600 posts! And especially, as stated before, because you seem to use the Politics forum to endlessly post about the same subject (Irish) from the same angle. Have you actually ever posted in that forum about anything else?

Of course I have. However being interested in a particular area is not the same as pushing your views on someone. I accept that the track record must be taken into account, but the question was not one of a trend, it was on this particular instance.

You believe that my intention in the thread I started was to push my views on others.

That was not the case and I do not think it is a fair view of the case to come to that conclusion. My intention was to challenge the perception of Irish being useless, nothing more.
Anything present in my op was put there for that reason. Providing sources, putting the word Useless in quotation marks, all with the intention of challenging the dominant discourse that I feel is overly dismissive of the potential role of the Irish language.

I honestly see nothing in my OP that would lead anyone to the conclusion that my intention was to push my views on others.

Ah here is the real problem. Yes you have been soapboxing your cause quite a lot, even if it was unintentionally done on your part. Then you decided to stop and act properly. The only problem is how was anyone to know you had changed your approach. Only time would have answered that one I'm afraid.
As soon as that original thread was locked, you came right back and started a new one. That only helped to enforce the accusation of soapboxing and pushing your own agenda. I would have PMed the Mod in question, explained my new position, and asked if it was ok to start a new thread. Why did you not choose that path of least resistance? How could you possibly expect anything other that what happened to happen.

I would have thought the rather long post in which I acknowledged my mistakes and apologized for them, and made a deliberate attempt to draw a line in the sand and move on from there would have been suitable for that.

I was not responsible for the closure of the other thread, I was not infracted or banned or even mentioned. I had no reason to expect being banned for starting a thread. Why would I have? Threads get closed all the time. I have never seen someone get banned mearly for starting a new thread after one is closed.

I can understand that, that is why I have gone to lengths to answer you honestly and I believe fairly.

You notice I have accused you of nothing, though I could very easily have done so. My goal is always to fix problems and make Boards an enjoyable experience for everyone.
I have answered based on your approach in that forum. You say you have changed, I am happy to hear that. I hope my comments here will help you further effect that by pointing out how you come across. Please take them onboard so you can enjoy boards better, and hopefully it will prevent that repeat performance in a few weeks.

Thank you for your time on this issue, however with regard to the repeat performance.

I have to ask, am I allowed to participate in discussions or start threads in the Politics forum about the Irish language? What is to stop a mod from seeing any attempt to discuss Irish as soapboxing or pushing my views on others and baning me again for any participation in discussing that topic?

For many of the points above you used my track record as the reason for upholding the mods decision, that suggests to me that without that track record, you would not have seen it the same way. If that is the case, then my track record can be used at anytime to change what is an acceptable post into a banable one.

The reasons for this ban could easily be recycled and used again, If I post anything on the Irish language it would just take a mod saying that they interpreted it as me trying to push my views on others, point to my track record and you have as good a reason for a ban as the one in this case, regardless of how I actually behaved in the post in question.

It seems clear that Eliot regards anything from my on the topic of the Irish language as soapboxing, or at least that it the impression I got from the PM's he sent me. It would not surprise me to be banned by him again for any attempt to discuss the Irish language.

So, Do I have permission to discuss the Irish language in the politics forum without my participation in the 'Is Irish a dead language' thread being used as an excuse to ban me at any time?

Scofflaw

The reasons for this ban could easily be recycled and used again, If I post anything on the Irish language it would just take a mod saying that they interpreted it as me trying to push my views on others, point to my track record and you have as good a reason for a ban as the one in this case, regardless of how I actually behaved in the post in question.

It seems clear that Eliot regards anything from my on the topic of the Irish language as soapboxing, or at least that it the impression I got from the PM's he sent me. It would not surprise me to be banned by him again for any attempt to discuss the Irish language.

So, Do I have permission to discuss the Irish language in the politics forum without my participation in the 'Is Irish a dead language' thread being used as an excuse to ban me at any time?

Obviously, the answer to that isn't going to be cut and dried, but there are some likelihoods worth mentioning. If the first thing you do back on the forum is to start yet another thread about the Irish language in order to put forward your position on it once again, then yes, we're going to take into account your previous history. If the first thing you do is jump into some other thread, and turn it into a discussion of the Irish language in which you once again put forward your point of view relentlessly and vociferously, as before, then, yes, once again, we're going to take into account your previous posting history.

We appreciate that everybody has issues they're particularly interested in, and that they may have points of view which they feel are not put forward forcefully by other posters. My obvious interests are the current crisis, European affairs, and environmental issues - I have other issues which engage me somewhat or occasionally, but those are my main topics of interest. Other posters are only really interested in nationalist issues, others in economics, yet others in immigration. So having a particular interest is evidently not a problem.

There are also clearly posters with fixed opinions. Our nationalist/unionist divide is well-established, and Damascene conversions are unlikely - similarly, anti-immigration posters rarely convert to a pro-immigration position, and vice-versa. While this is more problematic for the forum than posters having particular interests, it's not usually something that would lead to a ban in itself.

The point at which a non-problem poster with a particular interest and a fixed opinion becomes a problem poster on a soapbox is obviously not hard and fast. It depends on tone, output, dominance in threads, rigidity of opinion, treatment of opposing opinions, relentlessness in opposition of 'wrong' views, and whether the poster engages outside their special subject.

If you were to ask me to score you under those headings, I would have to say that your tone is generally vociferous, your output is very large, your dominance in threads is very high, your basic position is unalterable, your treatment of opposing opinions is generally dismissive, you're pretty relentless in your opposition of wrong views, and your engagement outside your special subject is very limited. All of those, taken together, suggest that you're a problem poster, which is how the Politics mods consider you. A further point is that, almost certainly, you're going to disagree that any of those are the case - the final, and really outstanding feature of a soapboxer is that they regard themselves as merely being "somewhat passionate" about their chosen subject, and certainly don't see their engagement on the subject as in any sense disproportionate, relentless, or vociferous.

There are therefore two possibilities here - either you're really not a soapboxer, and all the Politics mods are coincidentally all wrong the same way/biased against you for some obscure reason (dislike of the Irish language, most likely) - or what you feel is merely passionate engagement with an important topic is in fact posting behaviour bordering on the obsessive.

If you can see why we might want you to row back a little on your commitment to righting the wrongs of Irish language policy/treatment/public perception through the medium of Boards, and can do so, then we're probably going to get along fine. If not, then probably not.

moderately,
Scofflaw