A General Feedback thread

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

On and on and refusing to back up their claims...Like this sort of thing?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70130974&postcount=13

LeixlipRed

Well that's just hilariously innacurate so you couldn't back that up if you tried

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As you seem convinced that the thread in question was to do with trolling, whereas setting up a thread wanting an argument with libertarians is anything but. The OP was very clear in this regard.

Scofflaw

Lockstep wrote: »

As you seem convinced that the thread in question was to do with trolling, whereas setting up a thread wanting an argument with libertarians is anything but. The OP was very clear in this regard.

Sure - and we're not about to outlaw threads in which people of one political persuasion attack the politics of another group and aren't convinced by anything the other group says in response, because we wouldn't have a Politics forum if we did that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Just to interject with my own two cents, its clearly not trolling to provoke a debate on an idealogy you disagree with and want to dance around the handbags on. If you understand an idealogy, and you dislike it - grand. No problem.

However, can that defence of a posters right to disagree be exercised should they actually request instruction on what an idealogies utopia would look like? Surely they already have a good idea of what it would look like, which is the reason why they disagree with it?

You can disagree with an idealogy passionately, or you can play the fool requesting instruction on the idealogy and its utopian society but surely you cant do both at once honestly? If a poster dislikes a particular idealogy, they shouldnt need other posters to explain the idealogy to them. They should already understand it, given their knowledge of the idealogy is why they dislike the idealogy so passionately. They should be able to summarise the idealogy and highlight the particular strands they disagree with, *why* they disagree with them and what alternatives they consider more acceptable. Discussion then folows.

On another point - in the spirit of that sticking a smiley at the end of an insult doesnt make it any less of a personal attack, does laying one cards on the table in a post by declaring youre intense dislike of a particular idealogy have any merit when considering the rest of the post?

nesf

Sand wrote: »

If a poster dislikes a particular idealogy, they shouldnt need other posters to explain the idealogy to them.

I disagree, someone can dislike an ideology but not fully understand it. e.g. I think very hard left political theory is nonsensical but I'm not deeply read in that area so it would not be out of line for me to ask someone to explain some of the theory to me while still disliking the ideology in general because I believe the utopia is untenable.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I disagree, someone can dislike an ideology but not fully understand it. e.g. I think very hard left political theory is nonsensical but I'm not deeply read in that area so it would not be out of line for me to ask someone to explain some of the theory to me while still disliking the ideology in general because I believe the utopia is untenable.

I'd go further, and point out that "explain how your ideology works in respect of x" is a classic attack tactic, where the better you know the ideology you're attacking, the better the trap you can lay.

I'm not sure why this is regarded as something outrageous on a politics forum. Politics isn't religion, it's not supposed to be a matter of faith, spirituality or emotion - if you follow a political ideology, you should be able to defend it, and you should expect it to be challenged.

The thread in question was in the Political Theory sub-forum, was explicitly laid out as an attack on libertarianism, and was provocative in order to provoke responses from those who would defend libertarianism...and is there, in some way, something I'm missing here? Because that seems to me to be a completely unexceptionable thing to do in a Political Theory forum. Political ideologies are supposed to be able to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and a discussion forum, surely, is explicitly part of that marketplace.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It could have had something to do with the ball sucking comment as well

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

At this point, this whole argument reads as "My sacred cow is more holy than yours". I have seen no less hysterical statements in threads on social democracy, unions, and threads that dare to hint that government policies can in fact be beneficial to citizens.

It is patently obvious that many of those who criticize libertarianism don't actually understand what it is; it generally gets lumped into the 'neo-liberalism = bad" category. But it is equally obvious that there are plenty of posters who do not understand that the difference between social democracy, socialism, communism and totalitarianism are. The only difference is that there are more threads generated about the former than the latter.

I also think that in-depth knowledge of the literature is often used to beat others over the head with, whereas what I think what a lot of people really want to discuss are the actual political and social outcomes under leaders/governments who espouse these principles, rather than the internal debates among the high priests of a given theory. So, to use an oft cited example, posters who dare to raise the issue of the Pinochet's regime close relationship to acolytes of Friedman are shouted down with theoretical treatises. Of course, many of these same posters will then turn around in any debate on socialism and immediately raise the issue of Stalin and Mao, skipping by any serious discussion of how socialist principles often become social democratic policies in practice. While this may be more appropriate in the Political Theory forum, on the main page this is a bit disingenuous.

Let me also add that just because a post is written in an elegant, pithy way, that does not make it any less goading. I suspect that this is another element of these kinds of tit-for-tat threads attacking certain political ideologies: at its core, a post wrapped in well-crafted prose may be just as ridiculous as one wrapped in hyperbole, but the latter is easier to dismiss outright than the former.

At the end of the day, yes, we can report posters who continue along a certain trajectory when confronted with specific empirical evidence, or who are continually disrupting threads. But pearl-clutching, hyperbolic posts are there to be ridiculed or ignored, no more no less. Someone's extreme dislike of your particular hobby horse may be annoying (come on, when will you people see the light on a national list system!) but such is life in a Politics forum.

Laminations

Permabear, to be fair you could be guilty of your definition of trolling. You would continually argue against me as if I was a statist who supported the current actions of government. You would cite examples of how social democracy has gone wrong as if I didn't agree it needed to be changed, I just disagree it needs to be a libertarian solution. You constantly strawman your opponents position to the extreme statist/socialist opposing point, and cannot argue against a centrist or someone who agrees with more government control in some areas and less in others. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am a social capitalist but you still refer to me as a statist. You credit libertarianism with any improvements where more liberal policies have been implemented while ignoring the co-involvement of other factors such as increased democracy, access to information etc. while at the same time blaming the slightest government intervention for any failures in quite liberal systems. You state as fact the opinions of libertarian thinkers, as if something is true because Hayek or von Mises said so. Philosophical argument does not trump actual evidence and your evidence is always a mix of libertarianism and <something else> because it exists nowhere in its purest form. And like I said, in these instances you credit libertaianism and ignore the 'something else' as if it couldn't possibly be the balance that results in greatest benefit.

Now you can construe the following statement as trolling but it is my honest assessment of your devotion to an ideology. I love ice, you add it to whiskey, it makes it better, add it to coke it makes it better, add it to water it makes it better, therefore we should push for just ice. ICE FTW

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being from Munster isn't an ideological choice.* I'm pretty appalled you don't understand the difference, because it's exactly the same difference as between, say, political ideology and ethnic origin - neither geographical nor ethnic origin are something an individual has any control over.

somewhat appalled,
Scofflaw

*yes, even if it sometimes looks like it is

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote:

At the end of the day, yes, we can report posters who continue along a certain trajectory when confronted with specific empirical evidence, or who are continually disrupting threads. But pearl-clutching, hyperbolic posts are there to be ridiculed or ignored, no more no less. Someone's extreme dislike of your particular hobby horse may be annoying (come on, when will you people see the light on a national list system!) but such is life in a Politics forum.

Exactly.

Laminations wrote:

Permabear, to be fair you could be guilty of your definition of trolling. You would continually argue against me as if I was a statist who supported the current actions of government. You would cite examples of how social democracy has gone wrong as if I didn't agree it needed to be changed, I just disagree it needs to be a libertarian solution. You constantly strawman your opponents position to the extreme statist/socialist opposing point, and cannot argue against a centrist or someone who agrees with more government control in some areas and less in others. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am a social capitalist but you still refer to me as a statist.

And exactly - Permabear, you also do exactly the same to other social democrats. You've certainly done the same to me, as have other libertarians. If I banned the OP of the thread that so exercises you and other libertarians, I should by rights follow it up with bans of many of you for exactly the same kind of behaviour.

And really, that's enough time wasted on this non-issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If we thought it would make the forum a better place, I suppose we'd do it. I don't think any of us think it would, though. Misinformed attacks on ideologies, institutions, parties, individual politicians are just par for the course in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I'm well aware you don't agree with me and although you succeed in winding me up (on occasion), I do enjoy debating with you, although on libertarianism I think we've reached a stale-mate, a point where neither will convince the other and any continuation is just rehashing old points. And I know, moreso than with other posters, that when debating you that it is not disrespect, just utter disagreement.

beeftotheheels

I alluded to it on a previous post and I'm not sure that there is an easy answer but here goes...

What can be done about disreputable data, particularly in the Irish economy forum? It is not a boards specific problem, its not an Irish specific problem (although I do tend to think we suffer particularly badly from it, both from commentators not fully interrogating data through readers of that data accepting it at face value)?

One of the worst examples was actually a spat Scofflaw got into with Karl Whelan on Irish Economy questioning KW's assertions as to Irish Central Bank numbers. If you check with the relevant accounting standards then absent any evidence that the ICB is non compliant the numbers mean what Scofflaw takes them to mean and not what KW takes them to mean (and he offers no evidence of non compliance, he just didn't check the standards as far as I can tell and assumed them to be a whole lot more lax than any user of accounts would have assumed).

To my mind there is nothing to suggest an economics teacher has any special skills at reading either accounting standards or a set of accounts so I, like many others, would take his views with a large grain of salt. You don't need to be an accountant to read a set of accounts, but being a user of accounts for years as an investor, producer etc of accounts will give you a feel for them. Teaching economics at third level is no evidence of competence at this.

But many others view an academic, opining on something which is actually questionably outside his sphere of competence, and assume that because he has a PhD he must have both read the accounting standards and discovered a flaw in them so the data is flawed.

Ditto McWilliams, Hobbs, and then the non Irish sources like Zero Hedge (a blog which to my mind is about 80% rubbish).

One of the problems with the internet is a lack of editing so data can be posted unedited, and then cited in support of a proposition when that data is either flawed, or means something entirely different from what the user of that data believes it to mean.

Don't know if anything can be done, just a real bugbear of mine.

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you agree that setting up a thread to start arguments isn't trolling, then what's the issue with the 'J'accuse les libertarians" thread?

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The conditions are where it crosses the line from opinion to factual territory.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd honestly say these are all in the territory where people should be arguing against them rather than mods intervening to making a call either way. Trickle down economics is open to debate (one can view the decline of real wages in the US economy over the past 40 years as an example that trickle down economics doesn't work if one wants to) and one can argue that one can't just support Pinochet's economic principles exclusively while ignoring his other actions and so on.

I don't want to actually argue these things with you, I'm merely offering positions one could legitimately argue from here. I don't necessarily agree with the positions I stated.

nesf

beeftotheheels wrote: »

What can be done about disreputable data, particularly in the Irish economy forum? It is not a boards specific problem, its not an Irish specific problem (although I do tend to think we suffer particularly badly from it, both from commentators not fully interrogating data through readers of that data accepting it at face value)?

This is extremely tricky and I can't see an overall policy solution to it. At best I can say that we'll treat it on a case by case basis depending on whether someone is soapboxing or not but we won't be sanctioning people merely because they made the mistake of taking David McWilliams or someone as preaching gospel about the economy.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He made the mistake of attacking Munster with a proud Cork man as a mod.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If Milton Friedman's lawyers sue for that then they'll have a long list of forums to start with.

I'm sorry, I don't think we should be intervening in either instance. I'm not convinced that either should be upgraded from something that posters can argue with amongst themselves to something the mods need to intervene on.

Sand

nesf wrote: »

I disagree, someone can dislike an ideology but not fully understand it. e.g. I think very hard left political theory is nonsensical but I'm not deeply read in that area so it would not be out of line for me to ask someone to explain some of the theory to me while still disliking the ideology in general because I believe the utopia is untenable.

Perhaps nesf, but if you are truly interested in discussing the topic and expanding your knowledge is the appropriate stance to take:

A) I hate X - I think its selfish
Teach me about X

A is confrontational, so how seriously can B be taken as a serious open minded request for debate?

I can fully understand that people may ask to have a particular idealogy explained to them. Fine - certain relaxed standards should apply to that post, wheres its acknowledged the poster is not playing the fool, asking stupid questions or deliberately and wilfully assigning misinformation. In short - they dont know any better. They listen, they learn they adjust their positon. That doesnt mean they suddenly agree with the view, but they are at least better informed on the view they disagree with.

On the other hand, if its acknowledged a poster knows enough about an idealogy to know they dislike it ( You might not be an expert on hard left idealogy, but Im sure you could summarise what you dislike about it) then doesnt a higher standard of posting apply? Playing the fool there is not an honest request for information.

See - I see you (Nesf) defending the OP in question as an honest request for information, and I see Scofflaw defending the OP as an open and explicit provocation, a "trap". Now it can be one, or it can be the other. But surely it cant be both at the same time.

If it is an attack then surely the basic theme of politics should apply: Lay out *your* view, backed by *your* sources and be prepared to defend it. The OP didnt do that.

We already have a rule where its an instant ban to post misinformation on certain topics. Or even to describe adherents of certain idealogies in negative terms - apparently calling communists "idiots" is the same as launching a personal attack on every communist poster on Boards.ie. People playing the fool is recognised as being a problem in those particular aspects in that it leads to bad threads, filled with low quality posts. Its outright forbidden.

Now Ive seen a general theme from the mods in the thread where it comes across as "If we applied the rules, we'd have no posters left"

For example:

Misinformed attacks on ideologies, institutions, parties, individual politicians are just par for the course in politics.

If I banned the OP of the thread that so exercises you and other libertarians, I should by rights follow it up with bans of many of you for exactly the same kind of behaviour.

User: "But pearl-clutching, hyperbolic posts are there to be ridiculed or ignored, no more no less. Someone's extreme dislike of your particular hobby horse may be annoying (come on, when will you people see the light on a national list system!) but such is life in a Politics forum."

Mod: Exactly

Now I understand the quality vs. quantity argument, but the very purpose of the rules is to prioritise quality. Theres no purpose at all for rules if theyre not to achieve quality posts. So for example the rules ought to be aimed at ensuring there arent peal-clutching, hyperbolic posts - and encouraging posters to ridicule them or ignore them shouldnt be required.

To me this implies that its believed the rules, if applied, would be harmful to the overall discussion in the forum. The solution appears to have to apply the rules on an ad-hoc basis - sometimes the rule will be applied, sometimes it wont. Id say the solution should be to revise the rules and remove the ones which the mods consider impractical to apply.

Theres rules in the charter where its explicitly stated that misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned, and that posters are expected to refrain from conduct that will deliberately upset or provoke others. Yet, posters are being told in this thread that this sort of conduct is part of the rough and tumble of the Politics forum and people need to grow a pair and get over it. Now fair enough - maybe these rules are impractical, in which case do away with them and replace them with something practical or not at all.

Because otherwise you end up with a rather chaotic application of rules where no one actually knows what rules are taken seriously and which ones arent. Or when they will be taken seriously, and when they will not. Mods are encouraging people to report threads but why should people report threads when the signals as to what is taken seriously is mixed? I've seen personal attacks on posters seemingly ignored (just part of the rough and tumble I guess), meanwhile describing the london rioters (who are not posters) last week as scumbags led to infractions all round. Werent misinformed attacks part of the rough and tumble then? No ad-hoc "take it as we find it" flexiability on the rules there it seemed.

My own view is that people seem to broadly agree that theres been a swing in the character of the Politics forum. They may disagree on if thats a good or a bad thing. In response, there needs to be a decision made on what the Politics forum is trying to be. Perhaps when Politics was a niche, dull, boring place with small circle high standards could be applied. Now with the broader audience, the level of expectation on posters is unrealistic. Maybe it cant be presumed posters know a lot about their views, or others peoples views and cant be expected to support their views. Grand. So on the one hand, mods are tellling posters to that misinformed attacks are part of the Politics theme and just roll with it. Then on the other hand theres very strict rules around making misinformed attacks. Theres a contradiction there that needs to be resolved.

Now, if moderation is going to take a relaxed attitude around post quality, fine. If its not, equally fine. Posters will adjust to meet the expectations in either case. Posters just need to know what the rules actually are...

TLDR - Decide what the rules are, keep them simple. Apply them. Quality then improves.

nesf

Sand wrote: »

TLDR - Decide what the rules are, keep them simple. Apply them. Quality then improves.

I'd agree, my issue is that we need to decide where rules apply and where they don't and this isn't an easy thing to resolve. We can't apply the same rules for debates over facts (say how many seats a party got in a particular election) with debates over theory (say whether trickle down economics works). One is easy to inform ones self on in a way that is unconstestable (we don't have general disagreement over how many seats FF got in the last election) versus areas where there is general disagreement and a poster can rightly be left in a quandary over what to believe.

gandalf

Sand we may have had our differences in the past but that is without doubt the best contribution to this thread. Bravo!

nesf

Sand wrote: »

See - I see you (Nesf) defending the OP in question as an honest request for information, and I see Scofflaw defending the OP as an open and explicit provocation, a "trap". Now it can be one, or it can be the other. But surely it cant be both at the same time.

Sorry I should have addressed this point.

That me and Scofflaw interpret these things differently should underline how difficult these things are to moderate fairly and how subjective they are. This is further complicated by any moderating decision being open to challenge and us having to moderate in such a way as the CMods and Admins will uphold them. This gets complicated fast with subjective things. The days when mods could treat forums as fiefdoms and rule them as they saw fit are gone.

I'm just trying to underline how it's not as simple as "Come up with a rule and apply it", as much as I like that maxim myself.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I'd agree, my issue is that we need to decide where rules apply and where they don't and this isn't an easy thing to resolve. We can't apply the same rules for debates over facts (say how many seats a party got in a particular election) with debates over theory (say whether trickle down economics works). One is easy to inform ones self on in a way that is unconstestable (we don't have general disagreement over how many seats FF got in the last election) versus areas where there is general disagreement and a poster can rightly be left in a quandary over what to believe.

The rules would certainly be easy to apply consistently if everything were completely clear-cut. It's a good point, though, and I'd certainly say the implied criticism is warranted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Feel free to bring it further up the line, or even bring it up with all Politics mods before that. If you are going to do this I would ask you to bring it to Dades before the Admins and then only to bother the Admins with it if it's very necessary since they have a lot on their plates at the moment. I'd also ask you to wait a while before bringing it up with Dades as he's gotten a few complicated things dumped on his plate right now by myself and Scofflaw already.

What I would say to you is that this is a common problem. People think that by supporting any part of something you support its whole. E.g. say any FF member has some redeeming quality and somehow you're saying all FF members are good or honest or whatever. I think this kind of reasoning is fallacious but it is not the mods place to sanction people because of fallacious reasoning. It is the job of the posters to rip these people's arguments to shreds.

Illogical reasoning is not against the rules. It should be punished by the members of the forum sure through argument but I don't feel that the mods should be stepping in and infracting people because they can't argue logically.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Specifically, is he arguing that Friedman supported Pinochet or that Friedman specifically advocated murder and torture (as opposed to implicitly doing so through supporting Pinochet in any way).

The latter would be something that I feel should be acted on, the former not so much.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Sorry I should have addressed this point.

That me and Scofflaw interpret these things differently should underline how difficult these things are to moderate fairly and how subjective they are. This is further complicated by any moderating decision being open to challenge and us having to moderate in such a way as the CMods and Admins will uphold them. This gets complicated fast with subjective things. The days when mods could treat forums as fiefdoms and rule them as they saw fit are gone.

I'm just trying to underline how it's not as simple as "Come up with a rule and apply it", as much as I like that maxim myself.

The way I see it is the DRP appeals procedure should be there for a right to appeal and rightly so, it shouldn't be dictating the moderating and posting standards on politics. That's the tail wagging the dog to me.

The users and mods of the forums should be deciding the feel of a forum, not posters successfully appealing bans that often involve arguing semantics anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Link please and if I agree I'll act on it.

Edit: Actually I won't act on it not since it'll have happened too long ago, but next time it happens report it and I'll act.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

The way I see it is the DRP appeals procedure should be there for a right to appeal and rightly so, it shouldn't be dictating the moderating and posting standards on politics. That's the tail wagging the dog to me.

The users and mods of the forums should be deciding the feel of a forum, not posters successfully appealing bans that often involve arguing semantics anyway.

It's complicated in that the mods create the rules and (generally) the rules aren't themselves challenged. What we are constrained by is that a poster has to be shown to be breaking the rules of the forum (and to a lesser extent that the rules are fair and aren't biased against a particular group).

We're still constrained to only ban and infract where it is justifiable though. Otherwise any ban or infraction can be overturned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

We're still constrained to only ban and infract where it is justifiable though. Otherwise any ban or infraction can be overturned.

That's kind of the point of the DRP, there will be cases that it wasn't justifiable where a ban or infraction gets over turned, otherwise there'd be no need for it!

Getting the odd ban or infraction over turned is going to happen. Some cases will be hard to call but gut instinct usually is right!

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

That's kind of the point of the DRP, there will be cases that it wasn't justifiable where a ban or infraction gets over turned, otherwise there'd be no need for it!

Getting the odd ban or infraction over turned is going to happen. Some cases will be hard to call but gut instinct usually is right!

And my point is that we sometimes have to deal with very complex situations where a ban or infraction can be very hard to justify. e.g. when we're working off a feeling that a user is trolling but can't prove it.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

And my point is that we sometimes have to deal with very complex situations where a ban or infraction can be very hard to justify. e.g. when we're working off a feeling that a user is trolling but can't prove it.

Makes me miss the old feedback!

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Makes me miss the old feedback!

Well the current system is fairer for the user but makes life harder for the mod. But for the vast majority of forums moderating is very straightforward so it's only an issue for the more complex forums where adversarial debating is the norm not the exception.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

And my point is that we sometimes have to deal with very complex situations where a ban or infraction can be very hard to justify. e.g. when we're working off a feeling that a user is trolling but can't prove it.

And because none of us enjoy wrangling in DRP, we're probably more reluctant to act than we should be, particularly when the poster in question is exactly the kind of subtle troll that has figured quite largely in these discussions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

And because none of us enjoy wrangling in DRP, we're probably more reluctant to act than we should be, particularly when the poster in question is exactly the kind of subtle troll that has figured quite largely in these discussions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soccer had this exact same problem. It takes raking over a posters history to prove it.

I'd say looking at a posters history and what threads in particular they post in would give a hint?

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Soccer had this exact same problem. It takes raking over a posters history to prove it.

I'd say looking at a posters history and what threads in particular they post in would give a hint?

It puts a huge workload on CMods and Admins to have to do that regularly in DRP though.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

It puts a huge workload on CMods and Admins to have to do that regularly in DRP though.

I was thinking more mods doing it.

Well I suppose it ties in with the general direction of boards, numbers being more important than quality.

The idea was as boards got bigger forums would get more power. I don't think a site this big can have a single DRP board, each category should have one, but anyway.............

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

I was thinking more mods doing it.

Well I suppose it ties in with the general direction of boards, numbers being more important than quality.

The idea was as boards got bigger forums would get more power. I don't think a site this big can have a single DRP board, each category should have one, but anyway.............

The volume wouldn't warrant separate DRP boards. At the moment we get like 4 to 5 DRP threads a month for Soc, tops. People don't tend to question their bans. We get two major categories of people on DRP, people with genuine complaints or misunderstandings, often these get bans overturned and trolls for the lack of a better word (whether they mean to or not) wasting everyone's time arguing for a ban to be overturned when it's clear as ****ing day that it was deserved. The latter are far more common than the former unfortunately.