Edu:Banned From UL

Sid_Justice

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74857828&postcount=247

Sid_Justice wrote:

god has the yank not heard of the world variable?

sorry they're canuks, how's it going aye

total misuse of the word grand really annoying have to turn off

Peteee wrote:

Sid justice banned for a week.

Constructive criticism is okay, this sort of stuff is not.

I was banned from the UL forum for posting this comment on a thread about the UL radio station (UL FM). I contacted the moderator in question (Petee) twice but he/she has not responded within a 48 hour period.

My problem with the ban is actually multifold:

There was a North American presenter on the radio station using the word 'fluxuitious' to describe Irish weather. Seeing as this is obviously a made up word I questioned the presenters decision not to use the word variable instead.

In the first sentence I refer to him as a Yank but within a few moments it becomes clear he is actually from Vancouver. The Vancouver Canucks are a popular Ice hockey team. I refer to him as a canuks and I apologised for calling them 'Yanks'.

Between the two Canadian presenters they were commenting on the Irish habit of using the word 'grand'. However, they actually were using terrible examples and demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of its local usage. This really annoyed me so I turned the radio station off, said as much on the forum and that was it.

I've added the above 3 paragraphs just to explain and give context to my 'offending' post. However, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think I've acted outside the rules of either UL forum or boards in general.

I'm not certain why the moderators seem to be affording the UL radio station a degree of privilege. I was not attacking a poster, I was not even critising a boards.ie user. There were no acts of defamation. I really don't understand why the moderator acted in the manner in which they did.

I mean, if people wanted to say Gay Mitchell performed terribly in a radio interview, acting rude and hot tempered would they banned?

I am not under any assumptions that I am entitled to 'free speech' or whatnot on these forums but it is my opinion, the moderators are acting in a manner that totally contravenes the principles that boards.ie were built on and are acting outside the remit the (original) admin gave them.

Ideally I want to be 'unbanned' from the UL forum (the original ban was 7 days) and I want the moderating of the forum reviewed because it is obvious that the moderators are not acting in a unbiased or 'uncompromised' manner and it appears some of them have either personal or political undeclared affiliations to members of UL FM or UL SU.

Sid_Justice

Can I get an acknowledgement that CMods are actually aware of this?

Toto Wolfcastle

I'll take a look at it later.

Zaph

Peteee, I've unapproved your post for the time being. This issue is being reviewed by a CMod, and forum rules state that until invited by the CMod nobody other than the OP should post in a thread.

Toto Wolfcastle

Given that you were recently infracted for a similar type of post in that same thread, and then given an on-thread warning a few days before your ban, you can't say you weren't warned. Therefore I see no grounds for lifting the ban.

Sid_Justice

Leaving those infractions and warnings aside, what exactly in that post do you think constitutes a ban? I genuinely don't see anything other than the spirit of the post being negative towards the UL FM radio station. Which I don't feel is relevant.

I don't think it is boards policy for a moderator or group of moderators to decide what organisations are above criticism and which aren't.

So essentially I was warned about being mean to UL FM and then banned for it? My question is, what right have the moderators to make such a request in the first place.

Toto Wolfcastle

In itself your post isn't necessarily worthy of a ban. However, the cumulative affect of your posts on that thread definitely warrant a ban. Your tone and attitude are the problem. That is why you were warned and infracted previously, and that is why you were banned. That's my final decision.

Sid_Justice

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

In itself your post isn't necessarily worthy of a ban. However, the cumulative affect of your posts on that thread definitely warrant a ban. Your tone and attitude are the problem. That is why you were warned and infracted previously, and that is why you were banned. That's my final decision.

This is what the infraction was over:

anotherposter wrote:

I'm sorry, what position are you in to comment on this situation?

You've had a bee in your bonnet all week, complaining about the radio, c&s egm, and now dereks performance as a president.

why not show a bit of positivity instead of being a little toe rag upstart complaining all the time.

This was my reply

who are you? who are you calling a toe rag?

i am only complaining about things that have things to complain about. these are:

ULFM having a poor website
Some ulfm shows having terrible technical production
the su and c&s basically not acting in the interests of the students
derek being a complete dick within his capacity as president to students of the college

all of these criticism are fair, have been made in a reasonable manner and have not been intended as personal attacks (unlike your comments).

If you have a personal problem with my posting style, report the post. If you have a love affair with any of the entities i am criticizing please get over yourself.

There seems to be a common rule in anything that relates to the students union / clubs and socs which states you can't say anything negative about them. If you're not with us on everything you're against us. Is this 1984? Do anything publicly and be expected to receive criticism publicly. Derek Daly can speak for himself demolition man he doesn't need you white-knighting him.

I think this is a totally unfair infraction.

This is a warning from Petee

peteee wrote:

Sid, calm down.

Naming names is not a thing to do here on boards. I've removed names from your post.

If you have a problem with the service you can write a post that explains it in a level headed manner.

The names he refers to are the names of two radio presenters (forenames) who announce their name on an international internet radio about 6 times an hour. This kind of moderating shows that the guy isn't really following what's going on.

So basically I was warned about criticising the ULFM in a non-level-headed manner . I did not criticise the ULFM in a non-level-headed manner therefore the banning is totally unjust.

If this your final decision then obviously your final decision is wrong and your judgement is impaired. You're obviously trying to come down on the sides of the moderators and looking at it from the point of view of 'how can I justify this ban' rather than asking was the ban justified in the first place. If you look at that thread and allow for the fact the moderators are acting in a manner to protect the SU and its services from criticism you can they are acting in a totally inappropriate manner for boards.ie. The boards.ie UL forum doesn't operate under the guidance or supervision of the SU and the moderators shouldn't be aiming to appease them.

If a CMod agrees with the moderators in this instance, this has obviously become an issue for the admin because this type of behaviour is totally against the spirit of boards.ie.

I would like to request an admin investigation.

trout

I've read through the thread in question, forming my own opinion.

I see your overall contribution to that thread as nasty & unpleasant trolling.

A 7 day ban for trolling seems reasonable, and I won't be overturning it.

Just to be clear, you weren't banned for any one post, you were banned for trolling in a series of abrasive posts, over several days & weeks.

Sid_Justice

I think it's important to note that my posts may have come across as abrasive only because there was a massive group of loud people acting in support of the SU. So they continue to purport that the SU and its services (UL FM) are perfect and wonderful where I am only trying to get the truth across. So essentially it's the established majority against a minority (myself and a small group of others) so I have to shout twice as loudly to get myself heard. Maybe to someone who didn't understand the pretext they'd think i'm just being belligerent or trollish when I'm only trying to defend the ideals of open forum discussion.

I accept the final ruling of the admin, not because it's fair or just but because I understand their limitations. I think the boards mods/admin have got this wrong and it would take someone a bit closer to the politics of UL to appreciate this.

I think it's unfortunate that many will consider the support of the admin for certain UL mods as an endorsement for the principle of dismissing people who disagree with you as trolls. Maybe a more experienced admin would have been able to tell the difference. A pity it is.

trout

Closing this now - marking as resolved.