Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Warning appeal /List of mods

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    addendum:

    The mod who warned me - PND - warned me for calling someone a LIAR in capitals ie for shouting. I have pointed out the lie every time it came up for some time. Long before i used any caps.
    I pointed it out again and was banned for calling the other poster a liar.
    The poster gigino is specifically painting a picture which asserts among other things that

    5.8% of boys who are abused are abused by clergy

    I wont go into all the other things. I find it upsetting that you allow people to spread unsupported opinion like this. I don't mind if he actually produces some material but he twisted and rehashed MY reference and misused it and after he was shown how he did it he waits and then comes back with this 5.8% figure.

    People should not be allow to incite hatred of the church and clergy by telling lies like that.


  • Options
    #3
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Discuss this with PDN. It is perfectly reasonable btw to be warned for calling someone a liar. All the mod is asking is for you to rephrase things and attack the post not the poster.


  • Options
    #4
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Have you discussed this with the mod in question?

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #5
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Have you discussed this with the mod in question?

    moderately,
    Scofflaw

    Yes. My original submission covered this. The mod in question suggested I speak to a Cmod or go to dispute resolution and that he was not changing the warning. After I posted the nes message I read he had sent me an infarcion. I was subsequently banned for not listening to the moderastors instructions"

    I find it ironic how on one hand I honestly thought he was telling me not to shout given the eitire thread was ressurected by me pointing to the lie and stating it as a "lie" weeks before and given my continual references to the lie. It was however the first time I used the word LIAR in caps. The fact is the poster is not posting the truth and is a liar. On the other hand I am told we can't second guess the liar and he might not honestly know it is not true. He gets the benefit of the doubt but I don't?

    the mod responded that the person might not be a liar! Clearly given the mountain of evidence, the past histopry showing the poster was well aware of the words "Ministers" and "teachers of religious subjects" and changed these to "clergy/religious" and the fact that his fellow mod is currently engaged with how in the same thread the same poster is posting misleading stats it is clear the poster is lying. He avoids saying this when called and then waits and reposts in another thread or later on in the discussion the same lie!
    It is an offensive attack on christians but on the Catholic Church in particular and your moderators seem to be more interested ion banning me for calling him a liar than in investigating lies about the church.

    I was banned elsewhere from politics for pointing out the atheistic agenda being served by some politicians and I to be banned because other posters post insulting hate promoting anti religious lies and I point that out?


  • Options
    #6
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    We have had the problem that posters continue to post (usually) statistical claims that they know to be false - and posters have been banned for it - but because it's quite a serious accusation posters are usually given a lot of leeway in making claims if they can provide a source.

    Presumably, gigino's source is the SAVI Report, page 86:
    Combining religious ministers and religious teachers, they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys: 5.8% of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious.

    If that's the figure he's quoting, I can't see where you're getting the idea that he's a liar, because the SAVI Report is a credible source, and their figures for ministers and religious teachers as abusers of boys are 1.9% and 3.9% respectively, adding up to 5.8% between them. The SAVI Report uses the terms "clergy or religious" in describing this category, exactly as I have quoted them.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    nesf wrote: »
    Discuss this with PDN. It is perfectly reasonable btw to be warned for calling someone a liar. All the mod is asking is for you to rephrase things and attack the post not the poster.

    He banned me as i saw it for SHOUTING it in capitals!
    He is well aware I have pointed out this lie for several weeks and used the word "lie" and "liar"

    This was the first time I used "LIAR". After he warned me I didn't use it again.
    He said he would not recind the warning and if I wanted to do anything about it to come here.
    I have since PM him about the issue of gigino being a liar and he didn't reply.

    Meanwhile his other mod is arguing with gigino about gigino doing the same thing - failing to support his claim waiting until later then adding nothing to the debate repeating the same hate promoting lie.


  • Options
    #8
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    We have had the problem that posters continue to post (usually) statistical claims that they know to be false - and posters have been banned for it - but because it's quite a serious accusation posters are usually given a lot of leeway in making claims if they can provide a source.

    Presumably, gigino's source is the SAVI Report, page 86:


    [quopte]
    If that's the figure he's quoting, I can't see where you're getting the idea that he's a liar,

    Because you just left out the first half od the sentence namely
    89
    Combining religious ministers and religious teachers, they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent...

    If you look at the page before you see they ADDED the 1.9 per cent Ministers (not Catholic Ministers just "ministers" to the additional 3.9 per cent[/quote]
    of teachers of religious subjects who were not Ministers or Clergy.

    this was shown to gigino by me several weeks ago in different threads!

    It isn't evidence of abuse of per pubescent non teenagers since the survey covers under 18.

    It isn't evidence of Roman Catholic abuse by clergy

    the number of Ministers involved is 6 and the number of teachers of religion 12 . there are also 4 teachers of non religious subjects. Of a population of 700 people where there are 57 in another group of 2other authority" and 33 in babysitter.

    In fact they added together one group of teachers (12) and Ministers ( 6) because together this would be bigger than "babysitter". (12+6=18>13) And they did it only for boys since if they did it for girls "babysitter" (20 for girls 6 for Minister + teacher) would still be bigger.

    gigino was shown all of this and still is about it and says "5.8% of clergy/religious" as if it is saying that but it is saying 5.8 per cent is representing Roman Catholic clergy



    I have given the references from the thread above! And gigino had a history of posting the same statistic in other threads which were all closed after he repeatedly posted it!

    because the SAVI Report is a credible source,

    It is a unverified telephone survey. But ill accept the methodology is mathematically correct.
    and their figures for ministers and religious teachers as abusers of boys are 1.9% and 3.9% respectively,

    EXACTLY! But this is not what was continually stated! If you now say 5.8 per cent represents clergy/religious and not ministers and religious teachers you are lying aren't you?
    adding up to 5.8% between them. The SAVI Report uses the terms "clergy or religious" in describing this category, exactly as I have quoted them.


    It only uses "clergy or religious" twice in the report in the same paragraph in successive sentences the first sentence of which explains how they are adding religious teachers to Ministers.

    the SAVI report does not agree with the general consensus i have posted that RC clergy constituted less than one per cent of abusers of per pubescent children. In every discussion I posted this and gigino have come in and posted the 5.8 figure.


    He is lying and he knows it. and you are backing up his lies.

    The SAVI report poor and all as it is does not say as claimed.
    Need I post the constant comments like this by gigino in several threads?
    Need I point out that a moderator is currently discussion this with him in the same thread?


  • Options
    #9
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    He is lying and he knows it. and you are backing up his lies.

    I'm pointing out that if one accepts the SAVI Report as a credible source, he's not doing anything more than using exactly the same terms they used. You may object to the way he's using them, you may view his use of them as likely to cause confusion, but he has a credible source, and has done no more than use the figures and the terminology of the source.

    It seems to me that you can post counter-sources and/or clarify his terminology, but calling him a liar (or LIAR) isn't going to get you very far.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #10
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,300 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    Just a reminder folks, DRP is not the place to try and continue the prior thread.


  • Options
    #11
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Spear wrote: »
    Just a reminder folks, DRP is not the place to try and continue the prior thread.
    fair enough these are from a different thread

    the issue is about incitement to hatred and spreading lies. that is why the facts come up.
    6 June
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72616199&postcount=25
    but still the statistics show that 5.8% of all boys who were sexually abused were abused by Priests / religous. Thats just sexual abuse ; physical abuse percentages are probably higher

    5 June
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72588142&postcount=48
    The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820. Widespread horiffic torture and intimidation generally does have an impact on a population, yes.

    There are more examples.

    Im all for free speech but Im not for incitement to hatred by someone who shouts lies that he can't back up and then runs away only to return insisting the same lies are true. If he is claiming his opinion is accepted fact let him stay and debate. But running off and then posting the same lie later is just not on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hi ISAW,

    the long and the short of this is that gigino has provided a source for his claim. You dispute that, but the source is there, it's reputable, and gigino hasn't traduced that source - he has used the same phrasing as in the source.

    So much for that - the point of which is that you can't show that he's lying, which is something you're concentrating on as an issue here.

    However, if he had been lying, you still would not have gone about it appropriately, and you would still be banned, because of how you went about dealing with an instruction to desist from publicly calling him a liar. You ignored the instruction, and repeated the accusation. You were again asked to desist, and again repeated the accusation. And then you were banned for ignoring mod instructions and insulting other posters - both of which charges stand up to scrutiny 100%, because you have indeed ignored mod instructions and insulted other posters.

    I appreciate that you feel that your views on right and wrong trump those of anyone else around here, but that's not the case. My view is that you've overstepped what can reasonably be said about another poster's claim, insulted the other poster publicly and repeatedly on foot of that, and ignored mod instructions to desist from doing so. I therefore unreservedly support the ban.

    I don't expect you to be even remotely satisfied with this answer, because it doesn't agree with your view of the matter, so you're welcome to ask for Admin input.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #13
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hi ISAW,

    the long and the short of this is that gigino has provided a source for his claim. You dispute that, but the source is there, it's reputable, and gigino hasn't traduced that source - he has used the same phrasing as in the source.

    No he hasn't! He has changed it to "clergy" and "priests" and he has contextualised it to assert roman Catholic clergy. When challenged and asked if clergy or priests or religious means "Roman Catholic clergy" that he runs away only to come back in other threads asserting that the roman Catholic church has genocidal plans and takes part in abuse and covers it up and when asked for evidence supplies a opinion poll.
    So much for that - the point of which is that you can't show that he's lying, which is something you're concentrating on as an issue here.


    If you are saying something that is not true you are lying! If you say the Holocaust didn't happen and you fail to produce any evidence and anything you do produce does not stand up and you still say it is a scientific fact and not just your opinion then you are lying are you not?
    However, if he had been lying, you still would not have gone about it appropriately, and you would still be banned, because of how you went about dealing with an instruction to desist from publicly calling him a liar.

    What instruction? The instruction from PDN was
    addressing another poster as "LIAR" (shouting in upper case letters, no less) is unacceptable. Please tone it down and try to be a little less aggressive.

    Upon complaining about that I received the following:
    hurling the epithet of "LIAR" at another poster because you disagree with their stats is unacceptable.

    In both cases I was being rebuked for using "LIAR" in capitals.

    I had used "liar" for several weeks and I never used "LIAR" before or since.
    You ignored the instruction, and repeated the accusation. You were again asked to desist, and again repeated the accusation.

    I only read the subsequent infarction about callin him a "liar" after I replied to his lie.
    And then you were banned for ignoring mod instructions and insulting other posters - both of which charges stand up to scrutiny 100%, because you have indeed ignored mod instructions and insulted other posters.

    Fair enough. But the argument relies on the other poster believing he is telling the truth. I believed I was being warned for using the word "LIAR" in capitals.
    I appreciate that you feel that your views on right and wrong trump those of anyone else around here, but that's not the case.

    We will have to leave a court to decide that.
    I don't expect you to be even remotely satisfied with this answer, because it doesn't agree with your view of the matter, so you're welcome to ask for Admin input.

    No. It is okay. I have brought it to the attention of enough people. You think it is my personal bias. I don't. I'm prepared to accept what a court says. Ill guess we will have to wait and see.


  • Options
    #14
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,300 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    ISAW wrote: »
    We will have to leave a court to decide that.

    I'm prepared to accept what a court says.

    Unless there's some other interpretation of those other than being a legal threat, this is being locked.


  • Options
    #15
    LoLth
    Registered Users Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    Re-opened as user has agreed that there is no legal threat implied or otherwise.

    give me a day to catch up on the history of this thread and I'll come back with my opinion on it.


  • Options
    #16
    LoLth
    Registered Users Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    ISAW:

    I can appreciate that the subject matter under discussion in that thread is veyr serious and also very divisive causing posters to have either black or white standpoints and very unwilling to concede ground.

    However, the subject matter has nothing to do with the infraction you received.

    you received an infraction for personalising the discussion and attacking the poster and not the post, namely accusing another poster of lying when they had posted their supporting documentation. I have had a read through that thread and you repeatedly claim the user is lying, yes you pointed out the flaw in the interpretation of the supporting documentation and that should have been enough but you continued to accuse the poster of deliberately lying.

    IMO the "LIAR" post was the last straw and it wasnt the "shouting" that was the issue but the personal slant on the subsequent posts were deserving of a warning (the yellow card infraction) .

    Your red card infraction was for backseat modding and I've read the post including the part edited out by the moderator. I agree with the mod that it was an infractable post but I would have classified it as arguing with a mod decision on thread rahter than back seat modding. The content of that post was definitely more suited to a PM than a post on thread.

    Sorry ISAW but on review I have to agree with the cmods and the mod on this one and uphold the decision.

    On a side note: Incitement to hatred does not cover forum discussions or upholding a point of view. The poster did not post any material beyond an official report and his own opinion. There was no propaganda or "literature" posted, linked to or distributed that was not already, legally, in the public domain. I am open to correction on this as I am not a legal type but I have studied incitement to hatred in relation to a computer crime case involving a Fascist/Nov 7th society publication printed in Eastern Europe (where Nazi publications are not illegal) but distributed through a UK based webserver.


Advertisement