Banned from politics for Muppetry/trolling the starting the following thread.

bobbysands81

Got banned for posting the following in a new thread:

"If sexism, sectarianism, incest, being out dated, out of touch, anti-democratic and scrounging off others (especially poor people) is wrong... then why can so many people turn a blind eye to all these "wrongs" when it comes to the British royal family?

I could possibly also include racism but although individuals in the British royal family seem to have racist tendencies I'm not sure there's proof that there's racism in the institution... all the other things listed above there is proof.

So how can folk support such an institution?"

Don't really know what else to say bar I got a 7 day ban for posting the above. To me it's a valid discussion to have as I genuinely want to know why, in certain circumstances, people feel that it's "ok" or "mature" to support things normally deemed by society to be wrong... such as sectariansim or sexism.

Now, as a Republican I abhor sectarianism and it is a stick to beat Republicans wth the whole time. As such, I will speak out against sectariansim at every juncture and this is what I was doing here.

I think my ban has to be for Muppetry and not trolling as I don't think I have posted recently on this topic or even in politics (though I am open to correction on this).

Now I note that I have to go to the Mod that banned me before I post here, and I also note that I can post our pms so here goes:

Me to Scofflaw: Why have I been banned for trying to start a perfectly reasonable debate???!!!

Scofflaw to Me: Had you been trying to start a perfectly reasonable debate, you wouldn't have been banned. As you were, in fact, starting off with an outrageous piece of pure flame bait, you've been banned for trolling.

moderately,
Scofflaw


Me to Scofflaw: Huh???

Sexist - Male child gets hereditary line over female every time. First male born takes preference over all females born.

Sectarian - Catholics barred from becomming head of monarchy.

incest - history of marrying within their family.

out dated + out of touch - does this even need explaining? The very idea of an hereditary anti-democratic monarchy is madness.

Anti-democratic - Again, speaks for itself, the Brits have no choice about it, they're stuck with them.

scrounging - they live off the taxes of others in the form of handouts from the Brit Govt.

racism - Prince Phillips gaffe's; Prince Harry's Nazi uniform - though I admit it's not the institution itself but individuals.

Now how is this bating? I clearly say that there's proof for all the claims I make.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I don't have the right to say it.



You have that almost exactly the wrong way round there. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you don't in fact have the right to say it, because it's not going to start anything like a reasonable discussion.

What you've asked is a rhetorical question, and the way you've set it up is such that the usual people will agree with you, and the usual people will disagree with you. And they will exchange the usual shots from their usual trenches, and then I or one of the other mods will come along and close the thread as usual, and ban those whose participation in this latest bout of stupid trench warfare has been particularly stupid...so I thought I'd just cut to the chase and ban you for starting such an idiotic thread. Sort of "a ban in time saves nine".

If you'd like to object further, I suggest starting a DRP thread.

moderately,
Scofflaw


and so here we are...

Now I thoroughly admire Scofflaw's ability to see into the future and the way that this thread was going to go but I'm firmly of the opinion that a 7 day ban from the politics forum, as well as locking another thread I had, was a very severe punishment for an attempt to start a good debate.

Finally, just because others can't behave themselves in a debate and might call each other names (or cause trouble as Scofflaw seems to think) does not warrant me getting a ban when I have not done the slightest wrong.

Thanks.

bobbysands81

Anyone know how long it usually takes for this dispute resolution process? It's been 3 days now since I was banned from politics.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056273345

I would like to find out why I was banned for 7 days, a very harsh banning considering I don't post much on the politics forum. If the Mod thought I did something wrong then it was open to him/her to issue a warning, lock the thread etc... but a straight off 7 day ban seems very harsh.

nesf

The issue is that it was Politics and it was Scofflaw that banned you. That means 2 out of the 3 CMods aren't really in a position to give you a resolution. That means it depends on whether Dades is around to deal with the query. I could give a ruling but I don't think it'd be fair on you.

A 7 day ban is standard on Politics, so the question is whether or not you should have been banned, the length of the ban was not unusual or particularly harsh so it's a non-issue.

bobbysands81

nesf wrote: »

The issue is that it was Politics and it was Scofflaw that banned you. That means 2 out of the 3 CMods aren't really in a position to give you a resolution. That means it depends on whether Dades is around to deal with the query. I could give a ruling but I don't think it'd be fair on you.

A 7 day ban is standard on Politics, so the question is whether or not you should have been banned, the length of the ban was not unusual or particularly harsh so it's a non-issue.

Thanks for the response - hopefully another Mod can make a call on it as I'm now 5 days into a 7 day ban.

As I said, I don't post that often in politics but find it strange that a Mod can ban someone for 7 days for perfectly legitimate questions which merely ask why do right minded people think that discrimination is ok when it comes to the British Royal Family?

nesf

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Thanks for the response - hopefully another Mod can make a call on it as I'm now 5 days into a 7 day ban.

As I said, I don't post that often in politics but find it strange that a Mod can ban someone for 7 days for perfectly legitimate questions which merely ask why do right minded people think that discrimination is ok when it comes to the British Royal Family?

The issue was the manner in which you posed your questions. They were pure flamebait for any supporter of the Royalty.

bobbysands81

nesf wrote: »

The issue was the manner in which you posed your questions. They were pure flamebait for any supporter of the Royalty.

They were an attempt to ask people who support the British royal family (not royalty in general as other royalty is not necessarily sexist, sectarian etc...) why they think in certain circumstances that things, that most right minded people think are unacceptable, are acceptable?

Starting off from an opposing view does not equate to posting something wrong.

Now if I was telling lies in my post then you'd definitely have a point...

Dades

My apologies for the delay in finding this thread. The last week has been unusually mental for me.

bobbysands81, the tone of your opening post was not typical of a discussion opener. It was a rant intended to provoke a response. I also would have closed the thread immediately. For a thread to stand any chance of success it needs to at least open the door to alternative opinions and not crouch poised to shoot down anything contrary to the already elucidated points.

That said, given your ban was solely for starting this thread, with no mention of posting history or soapboxing to augment it, I would consider seven days somewhat harsh. A three day ban seems more commensurate.

Now, I'm not sure where this leaves us with your ban almost expired. Perhaps your record could be altered to reflect a change in your ban - I don't know. Let me have your response and maybe an Admin can clarify.

nesf

Dades, 7 days is pretty much the minimum ban handed out in Politics. So he got the minimum punishment already.

Dades

nesf wrote: »

Dades, 7 days is pretty much the minimum ban handed out in Politics. So he got the minimum punishment already.

I see that now though it seems very inflexible to me. But not having to deal with Politics posters every day, I'm looking at this from the outside.

I can see why this leads to complaints about the length of bans for single offences. If this isn't in the charter(s), perhaps it should be?

bobbysands81

Dades wrote: »

My apologies for the delay in finding this thread. The last week has been unusually mental for me.

bobbysands81, the tone of your opening post was not typical of a discussion opener. It was a rant intended to provoke a response. I also would have closed the thread immediately. For a thread to stand any chance of success it needs to at least open the door to alternative opinions and not crouch poised to shoot down anything contrary to the already elucidated points.

That said, given your ban was solely for starting this thread, with no mention of posting history or soapboxing to augment it, I would consider seven days somewhat harsh. A three day ban seems more commensurate.

Now, I'm not sure where this leaves us with your ban almost expired. Perhaps your record could be altered to reflect a change in your ban - I don't know. Let me have your response and maybe an Admin can clarify.

Dades,

No need to apologise but thanks anyway.

This thread was only an attempt to ask folk who would normally be completely anti-sexist, anti-sectarian etc... why they can suspend those beliefs when it comes to such an institution. Think about it... how else can I couch the question other than in the way I did?

The whole crux of the post was to invite alternative points as the crux of the thread was a question, and by no means a rhetorical one. To deal with the substantive points that I made would take a well thought out response, which is what I was trying to promote. In my three short sentences I posed two questions - neither rhetorical so I don't understand how it can be considered a rant.

I made a truthful statement, albeit one that many would find uncomfortable, and asked folk who would normally speak out against these things why they can turn a blind eye to them now. A perfectly reasonable and honest statement and a perfectly reasonable attempt to have a good debate on the issues.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

I see that now though it seems very inflexible to me. But not having to deal with Politics posters every day, I'm looking at this from the outside.

I can see why this leads to complaints about the length of bans for single offences. If this isn't in the charter(s), perhaps it should be?

Within the context of the forum a week's ban is not harsh or unfair if a ban is called for.

nesf

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Dades,

No need to apologise but thanks anyway.

This thread was only an attempt to ask folk who would normally be completely anti-sexist, anti-sectarian etc... why they can suspend those beliefs when it comes to such an institution. Think about it... how else can I couch the question other than in the way I did?

The whole crux of the post was to invite alternative points as the crux of the thread was a question, and by no means a rhetorical one. To deal with the substantive points that I made would take a well thought out response, which is what I was trying to promote. In my three short sentences I posed two questions - neither rhetorical so I don't understand how it can be considered a rant.

I made a truthful statement, albeit one that many would find uncomfortable, and asked folk who would normally speak out against these things why they can turn a blind eye to them now. A perfectly reasonable and honest statement and a perfectly reasonable attempt to have a good debate on the issues.

There are two issues here.

a) You're representing your opinion as fact, which is not welcome. You may think X is bigoted, that does not necessarily mean X is bigoted. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts.

b) The way you phrased the post was highly inflammatory and set things up so to call any supporter of the Royalty as being a supporter of bigotry. This is not acceptable.

I'd advise you to rethink how you word posts in future if you want to avoid sanctions, bear in mind that these are very delicate topics on the forum and we have to prevent flame wars and entrenched fighting on threads so inflammatory posts are very much to be avoided.

bobbysands81

nesf wrote: »

There are two issues here.

a) You're representing your opinion as fact, which is not welcome. You may think X is bigoted, that does not necessarily mean X is bigoted. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts.

OK - I'm confused now... you seem to be doing exactly what you said I was doing which I didn't do. My statement of my opinion was an attempt to challenge others opinions.

nesf wrote: »

b) The way you phrased the post was highly inflammatory and set things up so to call any supporter of the Royalty as being a supporter of bigotry. This is not acceptable.

I never accused anyone of being or supporting bigotry.

I did ask people how, if they are usually against (say) sectarianism, that they can support an institution that is sectarian? Now please tell me how else I can phrase this question in a way that is less offensive and challenging to you/others?

I am intrigued by this question but am remarkably banned from asking it!

nesf wrote: »

I'd advise you to rethink how you word posts in future if you want to avoid sanctions, bear in mind that these are very delicate topics on the forum and we have to prevent flame wars and entrenched fighting on threads so inflammatory posts are very much to be avoided.

Thanks for the advice.

Please can you word the question for me in such a way that I can post it, get a disucssion going, and not get banned. Thanks buddy.

bobbysands81

nesf wrote: »

There are two issues here.

a) You're representing your opinion as fact, which is not welcome. You may think X is bigoted, that does not necessarily mean X is bigoted. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts.

b) The way you phrased the post was highly inflammatory and set things up so to call any supporter of the Royalty as being a supporter of bigotry. This is not acceptable.

I'd advise you to rethink how you word posts in future if you want to avoid sanctions, bear in mind that these are very delicate topics on the forum and we have to prevent flame wars and entrenched fighting on threads so inflammatory posts are very much to be avoided.

As an aside, I've just been on the politics forum and there are numerous threads that fit the above criteria but Mods seem to be ignoring them.

nesf

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Please can you word the question for me in such a way that I can post it, get a disucssion going, and not get banned. Thanks buddy.

Try something like "Is the British Royalty an example of bigotry?" or similar. Still a fine line but it's less likely to get people's backs up than directly calling it bigotry. Though to be honest any such question will just result in the usual suspects occupying trenches on opposite sides and ignoring the opinions of each other so really I wouldn't expect much from starting such a thread.

bobbysands81

nesf wrote: »

Try something like "Is the British Royalty an example of bigotry?" or similar. Still a fine line but it's less likely to get people's backs up than directly calling it bigotry. Though to be honest any such question will just result in the usual suspects occupying trenches on opposite sides and ignoring the opinions of each other so really I wouldn't expect much from starting such a thread.

But I made factual statements, if I didn't then I'd understand why I was banned.

If my statements were untrue then they could have been shot down no problem.

nesf

bobbysands81 wrote: »

But I made factual statements, if I didn't then I'd understand why I was banned.

If my statements were untrue then they could have been shot down no problem.

You were banned because it was flame bait and wasn't going to encourage anything other than blind rage in response. Bear in mind that it's a sensitive topic and should be approached more delicately.