Upheld - Banned from Animal & Pet Issues

Discodog

I have received my first ever ban in 4000 posts:

"You have been banned from Animals & Pet Issues for the following duration:

3 Day(s)

for the following reason:

soapboxing, pushing own agenda, making sweeping statements in regards to a general group of posters.

I think you are well aware of the fact that this sort of behaviour is no longer going to be tolerated, therefore I suggest you use the next 3 days to consider your posting style in the forum and how you get your point across. There is absolutely no need to be so condescending to the world at large."

In my "offending" post I referred to the fact that some people post criticising rescues. This is verifiable fact & not opinion.

Following procedure I PM'd the Mod & suggested that they has misinterpreted my comments but I received the following reply:

"No I do not wish to reconsider, it is quite clear to me that you were well aware of what you were doing with that carefully formulated post and likewise with your PM. I would refer you to the dispute resolution process, but I'm sure you are well of it."

I fail to see the reason for the last remark as I have never been banned before & the Mod knows this.

I cannot see how soapboxing, pushing own agenda, making sweeping statements in regards to a general group of posters can be turned into a rule as it is totally open to subjective opinion. This then becomes dangerous ground because this is not the first time that this Mod has chosen to misunderstand my posts. I recently posted in Feedback seeking opinions regarding the best way to quote in posts. The same Mod immediately replied with a long critical post as they had totally misunderstood my motive:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056356855

I admit that I am opposed to some of the new rules but I have always abided by them & voiced my opposition via the accepted methods. In this case the subsequent warning regarding my future posts is impossible to interpret.

I fully accept that each forum sets it's own charter but this new "No Soapboxing" rule is total against what Boards represents & I am not aware of anything like it in other Boards forums.

I would ask that the ban be removed & that the "Soapboxing" rule be clearly defined or removed.

Zaph

Hellrazer, I've removed your post. Until requested by a CMod nobody is to post in DRF threads except the OP, including mods.

g'em

Hi Discodog, I'll look into this and get back to you shortly.

Discodog

Thanks

g'em

Hi Discodog,

There's a number of queries in your post so I'll try and address them all. I'm also, for clarity, going to put up the full sequence of PMs given that you chose to introduce them into the appeal.

adrenalinjunkie wrote:

Hi Discodog,

You have been banned from Animals & Pet Issues for the following duration:

3 Day(s)

for the following reason:

soapboxing, pushing own agenda, making sweeping statements in regards to a general group of posters.

I think you are well aware of the fact that this sort of behaviour is no longer going to be tolerated, therefore I suggest you use the next 3 days to consider your posting style in the forum and how you get your point across. There is absolutely no need to be so condescending to the world at large.

I am sure this ban will come as no surprise you, you are well aware of the forum rules and of the site-wide rule - 'don't be a dick'.

Providing your ban is not permanent, it will be lifted automatically after 3 Day(s). You will get an automatic message informing you that the ban is lifted. If you do not receive this message after the allotted time, please PM a moderator to clarify.

Bans occur after a serious rules breach so please keep in mind that Moderators don't just decide to ban people out of the blue. If you wish to appeal this ban, please follow our Dispute Resolution Process here. Your first action should always be to PM the Moderator(s) of the forum to discuss the ban. Remember that our Mods are volunteers and are not always online, so they may not be able to answer you straight away.

All the best,
boards.ie

Discodog wrote:

Do you wish to reconsider your actions before I refer this matter ? I post very carefully which is why you are the first Mod to ban me in 4000 posts. I was speaking in general regarding the number of posters who come here to criticise rescues.

Yet again you have completely misinterpreted my comments.

adrenalinjunkie wrote:

No I do not wish to reconsider, it is quite clear to me that you were well aware of what you were doing with that carefully formulated post and likewise with your PM. I would refer you to the dispute resolution process, but I'm sure you are well of it.

Regards,

AJ.

Now, I realise that you have 400 posts without a ban, but on the other hand I also know from conversing with yourself and the Mods that you have come up on their radar for less than optimal reasons. Your post history will never guarantee you immunity when you break the rules.

As I'm sure you are aware the Charter was updated on the 28/7/11 and now includes the point:

**Soapboxing : pushing an agenda that is not the sole concern/query of the OP. It also refers to any poster pushing the same agenda consistently / spouting their beliefs over others. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but no one wants it in their face all the time.

This is a valid and perfectly warranted rule. While it can be seen as subjective to one individual, the Mods work as a team and decisions that are made are done so by the collective, which makes it considerably more objective. Put simply, soapboxing ruins a forum's community. When one or two posters constantly strive to make the same points, or start the same arguments, or try to hammer home the same message it can make for very, very tiring reading to regular users and Mods alike.

In this instance I have to be mindful that the issue or rescues is something that you and I have discussed in PM. You may notlike the new rules that have come into play and you may not agree with them. But using a thread as a sneaky way to poke at the new rules is, frankly, a really underhand thing to do. It is pushing an agenda because instead of simply sticking to the topic being discussed you saw fit to have a pop at the forum and the Mods alike.

This is a topic that you feel strongly about, and I genuinely do respect that, but you can't unleash that opinion where it's not warranted because it interrupts the thread flow and creates disharmony in the forum.

I'm not going to lift the ban and in fact I'd like it to serve as a final warning. You seem to think that the Mods have it in for you. I'm sorry Discodog, but it's not them, it's you. All I can do is implore you to try and see it from the opposite side of view and if you're not willing to try that and abide by the rules accordingly then perhaps the forum isn't the right place for you.

Discodog

g'em wrote: »

Put simply, soapboxing ruins a forum's community. When one or two posters constantly strive to make the same points, or start the same arguments, or try to hammer home the same message it can make for very, very tiring reading to regular users and Mods alike.

But I haven't done that - it was my only post in the thread. Boards have described Soapboxing as:

trying to monopolise a discussion
trying to drown out debate
not letting others have their say

I have never done any of the above & no evidence has been supplied to support this. Surely to be guilty of Soapboxing there would have to be more than one offending post. If I am doing this constantly then where is the evidence ? I post an average of about 2 posts a day in API (I am banned so I can't check the exact figure). How can that be Soapboxing ? I also post all over Boards & no one has ever sanctioned me.

With respect I think that it is totally wrong to link our discussion via PM to this alleged offence. I Pm'd you as part of the accepted Boards procedure. I disagreed with your response but I accepted it. It is perfectly reasonable for posters to query changes to the charter & I always do so politely & via the correct protocol.

I fail to see how you can issue final warnings when you cannot explain what I have done wrong. If I am Soapboxing then show the examples.
Even if I were guilty a ban would be excessive given that there are no prior warnings. I am sure that you & the other Mods see me as a pain but, if you look, I rarely PM a Mod. How many of my posts get reported ?

I simply fail to see how someone can go, in one post, from being sanction free to a final warning - especially when the have done nothing wrong. Perhaps you could clarify your final warning comment. Does it apply to API or Boards ?

In our previous discourse via PM you wrongly accused me of having a personal agenda. In view of this & your decision to escalate this matter into a final warning I request that it be referred to the next level in the disputes process.

g'em

Discodog wrote: »

But I haven't done that - it was my only post in the thread. Boards have described Soapboxing as:

trying to monopolise a discussion
trying to drown out debate
not letting others have their say

I have never done any of the above & no evidence has been supplied to support this.

The post that lead to be banned is a prime example. It was a thread about rescues and you used it to lament the changes in the rules.

With respect I think that it is totally wrong to link our discussion via PM to this alleged offence. I Pm'd you as part of the accepted Boards procedure. I disagreed with your response but I accepted it. It is perfectly reasonable for posters to query changes to the charter & I always do so politely & via the correct protocol.

I appreciate your concern but in this case I have to take previous discussions into play because it's pertinent to the point you are making.

And without sounding trite you opened the floor to history being taken into account when you linked to an old Feedback thread that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Discodog wrote:

I fail to see how you can issue final warnings when you cannot explain what I have done wrong.

I'll repeat the banning reason then. Please stop being a dick in the forum. And once again I have to bring past history into this, you've had PM conversations about your behaviour on the forum with other Mods and, indeed, another CMod so I don't quite see how this is coming out of the blue.

Discodog wrote:

Perhaps you could clarify your final warning comment. Does it apply to API or Boards ?

A&PI.

Discodog wrote:

In our previous discourse via PM you wrongly accused me of having a personal agenda. In view of this & your decision to escalate this matter into a final warning I request that it be referred to the next level in the disputes process.

No problem at all.

Discodog

g'em wrote: »

The post that lead to be banned is a prime example. It was a thread about rescues and you used it to lament the changes in the rules.

The thread is not about rescues & I did not comment on changes in the rules.

g'em wrote: »

I appreciate your concern but in this case I have to take previous discussions into play because it's pertinent to the point you are making.

And without sounding trite you opened the floor to history being taken into account when you linked to an old Feedback thread that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I raised a previous feedback thread because it is in the open & highlighted a previous problem where the same Mod misinterpreted my post just as they have this time.

There is no point in having PM's if they can then be dug up at a later date to suit a purpose. If I have misbehaved then there are correct procedures in place & non of the Mods/CMods have used these because I haven't done anything wrong. It's seem strange that I post all over the rest of Boards without a problem. The CMods invited people to PM concerns & now it is being used as a stick.

g'em wrote: »

I'll repeat the banning reason then. Please stop being a dick in the forum. And once again I have to bring past history into this, you've had PM conversations about your behaviour on the forum with other Mods and, indeed, another CMod so I don't quite see how this is coming out of the blue.

With respect most of the correspondence with other Mods & CMods has related to forum issues & not my behaviour. I have criticised Mod & CMods legitimately in PM's but not on thread - except in the API feedback thread where comment was sought.

My past history is that I have only ever received one yellow card in 4000 posts. I do not accept that my alleged offence warrants any ban let alone a permanent one.

I would add that every PM that I have sent has stressed that I am voicing my concern for the forum & my desire to see an end to it's, seemingly permanent problems - hardly the actions of a troublemaker.

EDIT: as my alleged offence has changed from Soapboxing to "being a dick" could you provide a few other examples of where I have "been a dick" on API ? Also if I am such a "dick" then how many thanks have I received ? If you take a look through any of my posts you wouldn't accuse me of being a "dick".

I note that in your comments regarding PM's to & from Mods you seem to have omitted the ones to Seamus & Starpants where I have thanked them for their excellent Modding - let's have a little balance here.

trout

I'll take this on.

Leave me some time to read through the thread, and the various points & counter-points.

I'll come back with a response in the morning.

Discodog

Thanks

trout

As this is day 2 of a 3 day ban, I'm conscious of time and would like to bring this to a swift conclusion.

At first glance, I thought the 3 day ban a little harsh, and I can see why you are aggrieved.

That said, the action & duration is consistent with other bans for the same or similar reasons ... I won't be discussing these other cases / posters with you, I'm just pointing out that this is not an isolated incident.

My immediate concern here was to see if you have been treated in a fair and consistent manner ... and I believe you have been.

I know you won't like that response, but that's what I see.

The A&PI mods are of the opinion that you can be a disruptive influence on the forum. The Rec cmods are of the same opinion. Objectively, I can see that can also be a good contributor to the forum, you are clearly passionate and knowledgeable on the topic.

I would urge you accept this 3 day ban, learn from it, and come back tomorrow afternoon, as an asset to the forum.

Discodog

It will be impossible to return to the forum because Gem has increased the status of my ban to a "final warning". Given that my ban was based on a, possibly deliberate, misinterpretation of my post it would be a simple matter to repeat the process & ban me permanently. It would of been so easy for the Mod to of sought clarification before taking action. But I believe they chose to use to opportunity to mark my card - revenge maybe ?

You may consider the 3 day ban appropriate however a final warning is totally out of proportion especially as I have only ever accrued one yellow card until now. Also no one has been able to provide any evidence of "Soapboxing" or "being a dick". If I am such a disruptive influence there should be plenty of evidence.

Regardless of how the Mods & CMods perceive my influence on the forum the facts are that I have never transgressed to any degree. I have voiced disquiet to the Mods & CMods but only at their invitation or via feedback threads. I do not disrupt the forum & no posters would suggest that I do. The level of thanks that I receive is an indication of this as are the messages of support following this action.

There is a lot of talk of Boards wanting to build it's community & of welcoming ideas & opinion. The reality in API is that anything you say will be taken down as evidence & may well be used against you. Some of the regular members that have contacted me have stated that they are now too scared to post. It is a great shame that some of the Mods & CMods are totally averse to criticism or comment. API could easily be a superb, trouble free forum. Like the Animals that we own we react far better to the carrot than to the stick. But, as with the feedback thread, our comments fall on deaf ears. I have always stressed in all correspondence that my prime concern is the welfare of the forum. I also wish to add that Starpants & the much missed Seamus are excellent Mods.

However I am now prepared to accept that Boards has no intention of considering other less confrontational ways that the forum could be run. The same people & the same problems have been there for years & the removal of a perceived disruptive influence won't change it. If I no longer post then I am in good company as there are many others who offered their expertise & devoted a lot of time to helping others, that no longer post in API.

This whole episode, which feels totally like a "stitch up", has severely dented my opinion of the way that Boards operates. I have always followed the rules & I have never encountered any problems on any other Boards fora. I had thought that the systems & procedures were fair until now.

It would be an interesting state of affairs if all the Mods interpreted a post as what they think it means rather than what the words actually say.

I appreciate that you have to back your Mods, especially new & inexperienced ones, but truth & fairness must take precedent. The best Mods will admit when they are wrong & this was very wrong.

Discodog

In my previous post I used the phrase "stitch up" which may seem extreme. However, now that I have access to the forum, I would like to add the evidence to back up the use of this phrase.

The following Moderator comment was posted:

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Sweeping statements about people in general who post on the forum are no longer tolerated as I'm sure you well know, this applies to everyone.

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that you have used this thread as an opportunity to do a big soapbox routine in the culmination of having a pop at the updated rules of the forum, which just for the record has meant a huge increase of traffic through the forum, a much better atmosphere, a much more balanced view of pet ownership which is more representative of the world at large and most importantly allows the facts of important issues to be accessed by a much wider audience.

You can have a short break from the forum for your efforts.

The charter defines soapboxing as:

**Soapboxing : pushing an agenda that is not the sole concern/query of the OP. It also refers to any poster pushing the same agenda consistently / spouting their beliefs over others. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but no one wants it in their face all the time.

The offending section of my post:

Discodog wrote: »

Rescues have to constantly make these horrendous decisions yet people still post here complaining about them.
So before we criticise a rescue or seek to curtail their promotion, try to imagine being in their shoes.

There is no sweeping statement. People do post complaining about rescues & I can provide plenty of examples.

One post cannot constitute soapboxing & an accusation of it must be accompanied by evidence of repeated posts - I only posted once in the thread.

I also made no inference or reference to the rules of the forum.

Therefore my ban was totally unjustified.

Discodog

Following a discussion with Trout & at their suggestion I request that another Admin review this matter. I intend no disrespect to Trout but feel that as they are too closely involved in API matters to give an impartial judgement.

This case should be judged on its individual merit. If the judgement is to be based on previous behaviour then it has to be backed with evidence.

I appreciate that I may appear to be over pedantic but the process must be seen as fair.

trout

Firstly, a small but important point of clarity; I did not recommend you ask for another admin to review this, and it is disingenuous of you to say so.

I said I would not entertain you by PM, and if you wanted to carry on the DRP, to do so on-thread.
You have made a request for another admin to review this case, stating that I am not impartial.

Fair enough ... you can contend that the A&PI mods are biased against you, as are the rec cmods, and me as the admin best placed to address your DRP.

You've asked for evidence ... I have reviewed the following evidence.

• The PMs I have exchanged with you since the PAWS thread back in June..
• The volume of interactions on the A&PI mods forum, where you have been a regular source of tension, pre-dating my involvement with the rec category.
• The volume of threads & posts in which you've taken the opportunity to voice unwavering discontent at the A&PI forum in general, and certain mods in particular. This aspect of your behaviour is by far and away the most distasteful IMO, and the primary reason for me upholding the ban.
• The 18 posts by you reported from the A&PI forum this year (I didn't go back further that that).
• The 3 infractions (2 red, 1 yellow) recorded against your profile to date, which contradicts your claims of only one infraction.

I also reviewed the feedback thread you claimed I closed - that was in fact closed by one of the A&PI mods.

Finally, I reviewed the various Feedback and HelpDesk forum threads you have started, dating back to 2009.

This for a 3 day ban that has since expired.

The A&PI mods are of the opinion that you are a disruptive timesink influence.
The rec cmods are of the same opinion.
As the admin to review this DRP, I have also, independently, and without bias, come to the same conclusion.

On balance, and in fairness to you, I have also stated I think you can be a positive asset to the forum.

The purpose of the ban is let you know, emphatically, that the disruptive behaviour you have displayed to date, will no longer be tolerated simply because you can & do post in a positive manner.

While I personally dislike the nomenclature of the "don't be a dick" rule ... it applies here. It's the death of a thousand cuts to other users of the forum, and also to the mods charged with the smooth running of the forum for the benefit of all the users.

I don't want to go down rabbit holes arguing point & counterpoint. I see nothing fruitful in entering into games of semantics or rules-lawyering with you.

According to the DRP process, an admin decision is final. You are not accepting that.

That leaves us at an impasse, as you claim my judgement in this case is not impartial, in line with the A&PI mods and rec cmods.

What do you suggest happens next?

What outcome will you accept, given the ban has now expired and cannot be lifted or reversed?

Trojan

I've reviewed this. I can't see any issues with the original ban and uphold it as such.

My only concern is the fact that this has been a serious waste of mod, Cmod and admin time. Please don't waste any more time on this issue.