Banned from politics

glic71rods46t0

Hi,
I have received a 14 day ban from the politics forum. I find the ban unjustified and fear that the purpose of the ban was simply to silence me.
The thread relates to gay marriage, or as I put it, really about gay parenting/adoption rights.
One CMod -Nesf took the duplicitious position of being part of the debate as well as moderating the thread. He appears to have a particular axe to grind in the debate and when this was pointed out the moderating appears to have been taken over by Scofflaw.
There were a clear majority of posters who have a pro-gay marriage agenda posting on the thread. I as OP, and a few others don't favour change in this area outside of what is already granted by Civil Partnership.
The mod decisions/warnings etc throughout the thread had a bias towards the pro gay marriage viewpoint.
I was instructed to back up my opinions with evidence as the pro gay posters had. I gave my views regarding the dubiousness of the study being taken as "gospel" by the pro gay marriage posters (I include certain mods in this category also)
I initially declined but just a few posts before my ban I posted a large number of links to papers which support my viewpoint and discredit the pro gay parenting studies. This does not appear to have gone down well with the por gay marriage postes and mods, resulting in a first time ban of 14 days!!!

Clearly as a privately owned site, boards has no responsibility to be fair or even appear to be fair in facilitating debate. However, as a publicly accessed discussion forum, your relevance will diminish over time if you are unwilling to hold biased mods and Cmods in check.
I request that the ban be overturned.


Regards

Fencer

Scofflaw

This is the thread in question: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73789448

The ban is for a persistent refusal to engage in the discussion in any meaningful way, and a read of the thread will demonstrate that there are a large number of posters complaining about and affected by Fencer's stonewalling and evasions.

I've PM'd Dades, who is the CMod not involved in any way.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dades

I'll take a look at this 26-pager (so far) when I have a chance, and post a response.

It will probably be tomorrow at the earliest though.

nesf

Three moderating acts of mine are in that thread.

The first is warning Fencer not to be a dick on thread due to comments he made. Pretty clear cut really.

The second was a request for IRgay to provide links for a position of his, this was due to a belief that IRgay was trolling in that thread and I wanted to cut it short (I was not sure enough about it being trolling for it to be a ban). He was not sanctioned in any way, though he was banned the next day for clearly trolling elsewhere.

The third was requesting Fencer to answer questions to put at him when he was deflecting them with jokes. This was due to his constant refusal to clarify his reasons for holding his position in the thread. That and it's a serious debate forum and people are not allowed to use jokes to avoid answering questions.


No action was needed on the other side of the debate as they were behaving themselves for the most part.


I would also add that this was Fencer's second ban from Politics not his first. His first was for 7 days for ignoring a warning.

glic71rods46t0

Nesf seems to have edited his post regarding his mod decisions (I wonder why?). He now states that reason 3 for his mod intervention is the(previously unstated) use of jokes to deflect questions. He then says that people are not allowed to use jokes to avoid answering questions.
This again highlights the biased nature of his mod actions on the thread as pro gay marriage posters went unpunished:
Post #14 - Nodin
Post #131 - Bluewolf
Post #154 - Leixlip Red
Post #339 - Efb
Post #368 - Efb

Reason 2 stated for his mod intervention was requiring IRgay to provide evidence or withdraw a statement that he made. This mod requirement was not made regarding any unsubstantiated contributions from the pro gay marriage posters.

Reason 1 stated warning me not to be a dick on thread for comments that I made. This was a blatantly biased action by Nesf as he himself had engaged in the debate in a confrontational and frustrating ploy of pretending not to understand my post. This ploy of pseudo confusion was adopted by many of the pro gay marriage posters and lead to me frustratingly question the posters comprehension of the english language as my posts are pretty straight forward. A useful mod action at that point would have been to cut out the pseudo confusion!

I have just discovered/remembered that I received a ban from Nesf in June on an unrelated matter

nesf

noudvg4firkqbt wrote: »

Nesf seems to have edited his post regarding his mod decisions (I wonder why?). He now states that reason 3 for his mod intervention is the(previously unstated) use of jokes to deflect questions. He then says that people are not allowed to use jokes to avoid answering questions.
This again highlights the biased nature of his mod actions on the thread as pro gay marriage posters went unpunished:
Post #14 - Nodin
Post #131 - Bluewolf
Post #154 - Leixlip Red
Post #339 - Efb
Post #368 - Efb

Reason 2 stated for his mod intervention was requiring IRgay to provide evidence or withdraw a statement that he made. This mod requirement was not made regarding any unsubstantiated contributions from the pro gay marriage posters.

Reason 1 stated warning me not to be a dick on thread for comments that I made. This was a blatantly biased action by Nesf as he himself had engaged in the debate in a confrontational and frustrating ploy of pretending not to understand my post. This ploy of pseudo confusion was adopted by many of the pro gay marriage posters and lead to me frustratingly question the posters comprehension of the english language as my posts are pretty straight forward. A useful mod action at that point would have been to cut out the pseudo confusion!

I have just discovered/remembered that I received a ban from Nesf in June on an unrelated matter

I had to edit as I forgot the third moderation action. I initially only remembered two.

Reason 3: None of them were stonewalling and avoiding debate. You were.

Reason 2: No one reported these posts and brought them to my attention.

Reason 1: You suggested I didn't understand English and you openly wondered whether I could comprehend your post. Of course you got a warning for being a dick.

glic71rods46t0

I think that it is customary not to try to repeat the thread on here. Your prompt response and repeated accusations again only serves to highlight your interest in scoring points over me (for some bizarre/unknown reason) rather than doing the job of unbiased moderating of the thread.

To counter your claims:
Reason 3 - That is your opinion. I believe your opinion is biased
Reason 2 - You were an active participant on the thread - why would anyone need to bring them to your attention? Again your reply indicates bias
Reason 1 - Again your pseudo confusion and apparent lack of comprehension of my plain english posts enflamed the debate resulting in my post. Please refrain from calling me a dick - it just serves to highlight the perception that you have some agenda against me

Can we agree to allow the CMod or administrator to impartially adjudicate on this without further contribution from you or I?

nesf

noudvg4firkqbt wrote: »

Can we agree to allow the CMod or administrator to impartially adjudicate on this without further contribution from you or I?

Sure. I disagree with your interpretation but you are correct and this is not the place to be arguing over it (was just about to suggest this when I saw you had replied actually).

Just one point: If I'm involved in a thread it does not mean I'm reading every post carefully. I normally am only concerned with replies to my own posts in such a thread and skim read at best other people's posts.

Dades

Fencer, I'm going to ask for the ban to be recinded. As you'll see below, I'm not suggesting you are innocent, and there will be conditions.

There's no doubt that many of your posts, taken en mass, could be construed as trolling. Regardless of what you believe, you can't make a substantive (and controversial) statement with the intent of starting a debate, and hide behind the idea that because your opinion runs parallel to legislation you are exempt from backing it up.

This would not have been so much of an issue had you not claimed you wanted debate, or were open-minded, or even had alluded to your previous admission that you believed there was a "natural law" to be followed on such matters. Instead your japes and obfuscating only served to wind up opposing posters who were already wound up enough to engage you. Yes, you finally posted some links to studies plucked off the internet, which we all know came too late and from too dodgy a source to stop the trainwreck.

You are right in that you were not the only poster out of line in the thread, and although this shouldn't be your concern (The mods can and do rely on Reported Posts). However, the onus is particularly on you, as the initiator of the debate, to contribute more than was forthcoming. Hence the attention from the forum mods which you attracted.

So, what I need to know now is that the same tactics are not going to happen again. If you post on a substantive topic you are not going to hide behind the status quo, or deflect question with jokes.

I'm willing to let this thread serve as a warning about how to operate in Politics, and will be watching -as an objective viewer - to see this doesn't repeat itself.

Go forth, and follow the rules of engagement. If you post something, be prepared to back it up promptly. And do not appear in my Reported Posts list.

Dades

glic71rods46t0

Cheers Dades,
I appreciate that - and I hear you loud and clear.
Just 1 thing though, I seem to still be banned. Can you see how long it takes to get the system updated regarding my ban being lifted?

Thanks again

Fencer

nesf

noudvg4firkqbt wrote: »

Cheers Dades,
I appreciate that - and I hear you loud and clear.
Just 1 thing though, I seem to still be banned. Can you see how long it takes to get the system updated regarding my ban being lifted?

Thanks again

noudvg4firkqbt

I was just waiting on you to acknowledge that you understood Dades' post before lifting the ban. I'll life it now.