Banned for starting a Thread in Irish Economy Subforum.

deise go deo

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

It seems to me that if any other poster started the thread I did, they would not have been banned. Would that be fair to say?

If that is the case then obviously my posting history is what has turned an otherwise acceptible thread into a banable offence.

The question is not one of rowing back or taking it easy, it is one of, if I can be banned for what is an otherwise accceptable post on account of my posting history, what is to stop me from being banned at any point for any post on the topic of the Irish language in the politics forum?

If for example I was to start a thread on the topic of the Irish language, would I be banned again, regardless of the actual op of that thread?

If I started such a thread then on the basis of this discussion it seams I would deserve a ban, as such a ban would be as justified as the ban that is being upheld here. That in effect means I do not have permission to post on the topic of the Irish language as any post no matter what the content would be a banable offence. Would it not?

Will I be banned just for posting on the topic? Or for starting a thread as was the case this time?



As for claiming that my position is unalterable, I have shown clearly in this thread where I have in effect altered my position. Why this has never been accounted for, and claims as to the unalterability of my position are still being made, despite evidence to the contrary, is beyond me.

Scofflaw

deise go deo wrote: »

It seems to me that if any other poster started the thread I did, they would not have been banned. Would that be fair to say?

If that is the case then obviously my posting history is what has turned an otherwise acceptible thread into a banable offence.

The question is not one of rowing back or taking it easy, it is one of, if I can be banned for what is an otherwise accceptable post on account of my posting history, what is to stop me from being banned at any point for any post on the topic of the Irish language in the politics forum?

If for example I was to start a thread on the topic of the Irish language, would I be banned again, regardless of the actual op of that thread?

If I started such a thread then on the basis of this discussion it seams I would deserve a ban, as such a ban would be as justified as the ban that is being upheld here. That in effect means I do not have permission to post on the topic of the Irish language as any post no matter what the content would be a banable offence. Would it not?

Will I be banned just for posting on the topic? Or for starting a thread as was the case this time?

On the basis I've outlined above, it's possible. The reason I've outlined our view of the matter is so that you can take it into account. I've been as explicit and as detailed as possible, so you have as much idea as possible as to how to avoid the same issues occurring again.

I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't take your posting history into account - we do so for every poster.

deise go deo wrote: »

As for claiming that my position is unalterable, I have shown clearly in this thread where I have in effect altered my position. Why this has never been accounted for, and claims as to the unalterability of my position are still being made, despite evidence to the contrary, is beyond me.

Perhaps because what you've described as an alteration in your position is actually more of a change of tactics.

moderately,
Scofflaw

deise go deo

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the basis I've outlined above, it's possible.

So in effect I can be banned for any post on the topic of the Irish language, regardless of the content of that post?

The reason I've outlined our view of the matter is so that you can take it into account. I've been as explicit and as detailed as possible, so you have as much idea as possible as to how to avoid the same issues occurring again.

It seems to only possible way of avoiding the issue is to never again post on the topic of the Irish language. Is that not so?

If that is the case then what is the point of this, I have been told that I should change my posting style by Dades in the previous discussion thread, I did, and can show clearly where this happened, yet this has been ignored, and I have been baned again and am still being told I need to change despite already doing this, and also told that even if I do change (Further/again I'm not sure how really) I can still be banned just for participation, without having done anything specifically wrong other than just posting on a topic.

Put your self in my shoes, Would you accept that? I certainly will not.

I do not think that is reasonable.

I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't take your posting history into account - we do so for every poster.

I don't think that, I do however think its completely unfair to use posting history as an excuse to ban someone regardless of the content of their post.

I can see that in the case of someone doing something wrong, posting history may determine whether or not action should be taken, or the benefit of the doubt given, or if action is taken, determine the severity of that action.
But to ban someone solely on the basis of their posting history? unacceptable in my opinion.

Perhaps because what you've described as an alteration in your position is actually more of a change of tactics.

moderately,
Scofflaw

How so? My position was once support for compulsion as it is currently, with everyone being forced to do Irish, On reflection based on points made by others I changed my mind and agreed that forcing people to do Irish when they do not want to is not justified.

What tactic have I changed? Clearly that is a change of position.

Scofflaw

I don't think that, I do however think its completely unfair to use posting history as an excuse to ban someone regardless of the content of their post.

I can see that in the case of someone doing something wrong, posting history may determine whether or not action should be taken, or the benefit of the doubt given, or if action is taken, determine the severity of that action.
But to ban someone solely on the basis of their posting history? unacceptable in my opinion.

Why is it unacceptable? Say someone reports a post. I go and look at it, and decide that the post itself is only mildly objectionable rubbish, say to the point where it might or might not warrant a yellow card, and simple deletion might suffice. However, I recall that I've wound up looking at a lot of such posts from this poster, so I decide to have a look at their posting history, and I find that the poster has never contributed anything to the forum bar exactly the same kind of mildly objectionable but not necessarily infractable rubbish.

What does the poster in question contribute to the forum? Nothing but petty aggravation - lots of post reports, occasional yellow or red cards, and nothing positive. And you're saying that because no single post in itself warrants a ban, it would be unacceptable to ban that poster.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. We don't deal with posts in isolation, and I can't see any reason why that would be something we should do, because that leads to a particular form of gaming the system, where some posters consistently ride the edge of the acceptable - no post ever quite worth a ban in itself.

We've banned such posters before now, and like yourself, they would much rather we had to pick a particular post, and justify the entire ban based on that post - and they've received the same answer, that it doesn't work that way. We've had to ban posters purely on the basis of obsessiveness - not because any post they'd ever made was objectionable in itself, but because they were at the centre of trainwreck thread after trainwreck thread as a result of their obsessive posting behaviour, and that spoils the forum for everyone else.

No one poster has the right to behave on the forum in such a way as to spoil it for large numbers of other posters - a rule so obvious we probably don't even include it in the charter, because if someone can't work that out for themselves, there's no hope at all that they'll know when they're doing it.

So, yes, simply ensuring that any given post you make isn't actionable in itself isn't sufficient to ensure that you never receive a ban, because that's an entirely inadequate rule for keeping the forum usable for the majority.

moderately,
Scofflaw