banned from politics

davoxx

Hi,

I've been banned for 1 day from the politics forum.

I believe that this ban was incorrect and wish to appeal.

The mod in question has failed to state whether the decision is final as I have raised it with them.

Since I have not heard back and given the time scale, I am assuming that there is no other option but to raise this issue.

Dave

<edit> he has since replied stating that it was final </edit>



PS: Am I allowed to post pm as evidence to support my points?

davoxx

Link to actual post of banning: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75052402&postcount=110

There Scofflaw states "You don't listen, do you? Banned for a day for continuing to personalise the debate after being warned."

I see no previous warning regarding this. When I asked Scofflaw about it, I received no reply.

Scofflaw did explain what he meant though: "It means having a go at the poster rather than addressing the post."

Post in question:

davoxx wrote:

you misspelt freedom fighter ... but don't let that stop you throwing a dig at marty ...

and i'm sure tony 'the lair' blair will not comment on the deals he was trying to secure with gaddafi either ...

I think I was addressing the post in which the poster had a swing at 'marty'. This is shown by referring to Martin McGuiness as "St. Marty".

So I fail to see how I was having a go at the poster.

Also to be included in my dispute is this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75039532&postcount=42

In which Scofflaw personally attacks me by saying that my posts are drivel.

I asked for verification of which ones to which I received a "nearly every single post of yours on that thread" answer.

I then asked for an example so that I could change my posting habits, to which I received a "you can just reread your posts on that thread" answer.

Then I was infracted for this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75039944&postcount=51

I was replying to a post in which a poster had made a comment using a quote from family guy.

I'm not sure if Scofflaw is holding a grudge against me, and apologies if it is not the case, but from my perspective, he is.

Thanking you,

Dave

nesf

You were warned to improve your quality of contribution on post 42 of that thread by Scofflaw.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

You were warned to improve your quality of contribution on post 42 of that thread by Scofflaw.

So why was I banned for a personal attack, with the claim of a warning?

I also can not see the personalising in the offending post.
If you can show me I would be grateful.

Thanking you for your time,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

So why was I banned for a personal attack, with the claim of a warning?

I also can not see the personalising in the offending post.
If you can show me I would be grateful.

Thanking you for your time,

Dave

A warning to improve the quality of your posting would encompass personal attacks. Seriously, you got a general warning and then did something we don't approve of, of course you were going to get a slap on the wrist. A 1 day ban is trivial, so I fail to see the big issue here.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

A warning to improve the quality of your posting would encompass personal attacks. Seriously, you got a general warning and then did something we don't approve of, of course you were going to get a slap on the wrist. A 1 day ban is trivial, so I fail to see the big issue here.

Fair enough I presumed that by 'drivel' he meant context and information contained.

Was there a personal attack in the post that I was banned for?
I'm not sure on what was not approved in that post, nor the 'drivel' referred to prior.

All I am asking for is clarification, so that I can prevent repeating the same error.


Thanking you,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

Fair enough I presumed that by 'drivel' he meant context and information contained.

Was there a personal attack in the post that I was banned for?
I'm not sure on what was not approved in that post, nor the 'drivel' referred to prior.

All I am asking for is clarification, so that I can prevent repeating the same error.


Thanking you,

Dave

Correcting someone's spelling is a no-no if you've already been warned to post better content. It can be viewed as a personal attack, albeit an underhanded one.

Generally speaking avoid criticising the spelling/grammar/etc of a post, focus on what the post is saying and attack that instead.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

Correcting someone's spelling is a no-no if you've already been warned to post better content. It can be viewed as a personal attack, albeit an underhanded one.

Generally speaking avoid criticising the spelling/grammar/etc of a post, focus on what the post is saying and attack that instead.

Thanks for replying.

The "misspelling" in question was this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75051426&postcount=109

I was referring to the fact that terrorist for some could mean freedom fighter for others.

This is common on many forums/threads with the whole FYP, or "fixed that for you".

I am sure I am not the only person to use the "you've misspelt <xxx>" version.

Do you still believe it was a "personal attack", even an underhanded one?

Thanks,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

Thanks for replying.

The "misspelling" in question was this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75051426&postcount=109

I was referring to the fact that terrorist for some could mean freedom fighter for others.

This is common on many forums/threads with the whole FYP, or "fixed that for you".

I am sure I am not the only person to use the "you've misspelt <xxx>" version.

Do you still believe it was a "personal attack", even an underhanded one?

Thanks,

Dave

FYP style posts are not welcome generally on Politics because they're the lowest form of argument. This has been the case for a very long time.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

FYP style posts are not welcome generally on Politics because they're the lowest form of argument. This has been the case for a very long time.

That may be the case, but it is not in the charter.

Also it was not pointed out that this was the reason for the personal attack.

It can hardly be fair if others use this method too, and are not banned for it, or even infracted.

Can you confirm that the reason I was banned was the "spelling" part of my post?

Thanks for replying,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

That may be the case, but it is not in the charter.

Also it was not pointed out that this was the reason for the personal attack.

It can hardly be fair if others use this method too, and are not banned for it, or even infracted.

Can you confirm that the reason I was banned was the "spelling" part of my post?

Thanks for replying,

Dave

The charter is just guidelines, it is not binding on mods etc.


The issue is this, instead of arguing against the point made by the poster you had a go at them saying they should be using the term freedom fighter not terrorist.

Now, seriously, to anyone with a bit of sense, it is well known that some people in this country view the IRA as having been terrorists while a minority view them as having been freedom fighters. To correct someone like this, as if it was a matter of fact not opinion, is really not welcome on the forum. You may not like people calling McGuinness a terrorist in the past but you just have to accept that it's a perfectly valid point of view.

If you want to say McG was a freedom fighter not a terrorist, argue for it. Don't just correct other people's posts.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

The charter is just guidelines, it is not binding on mods etc.


The issue is this, instead of arguing against the point made by the poster you had a go at them saying they should be using the term freedom fighter not terrorist.

Now, seriously, to anyone with a bit of sense, it is well known that some people in this country view the IRA as having been terrorists while a minority view them as having been freedom fighters. To correct someone like this, as if it was a matter of fact not opinion, is really not welcome on the forum. You may not like people calling McGuinness a terrorist in the past but you just have to accept that it's a perfectly valid point of view.

If you want to say McG was a freedom fighter not a terrorist, argue for it. Don't just correct other people's posts.

Thanks for your reply.

I'll get back to you once I have a think about your comments.

Dave

davoxx

After having read what you said, here is my response.

nesf wrote: »

The charter is just guidelines, it is not binding on mods etc.

Then how am I meant to know? Especially given that the warning did not elaborate on "complete drivel".
You have to agree it does look like a pretence.

nesf wrote: »

The issue is this, instead of arguing against the point made by the poster you had a go at them saying they should be using the term freedom fighter not terrorist.

How did I have a go at them? Because I said "you misspelled that"?
Are other posts moderated like this?
Was my post even reported?

nesf wrote: »

Now, seriously, to anyone with a bit of sense, it is well known that some people in this country view the IRA as having been terrorists while a minority view them as having been freedom fighters. To correct someone like this, as if it was a matter of fact not opinion, is really not welcome on the forum. You may not like people calling McGuinness a terrorist in the past but you just have to accept that it's a perfectly valid point of view.

I find the "Now, seriously, to anyone with a bit of sense" uncalled for. I've been civil here and it seems like you are having a go at me.

I notice that you have put in minority before view. It this your own opinion? Is this what this is all about?
Even you think that I think that McGuinness is a freedom fighter, that does not justify the ban, in fact it only shows that it is misplaced.

If i replied "he is obviously a freedom fighter" is that not also correcting hence attacking the poster?

nesf wrote: »

If you want to say McG was a freedom fighter not a terrorist, argue for it. Don't just correct other people's posts.

I did not want to say the McGuinness was a freedom fighter, the point was that it was not clear cut and was not relevant to Gaddafi's murder.

Thanks,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

After having read what you said, here is my response.


Then how am I meant to know? Especially given that the warning did not elaborate on "complete drivel".
You have to agree it does look like a pretence.


How did I have a go at them? Because I said "you misspelled that"?
Are other posts moderated like this?
Was my post even reported?


I find the "Now, seriously, to anyone with a bit of sense" uncalled for. I've been civil here and it seems like you are having a go at me.

I notice that you have put in minority before view. It this your own opinion? Is this what this is all about?
Even you think that I think that McGuinness is a freedom fighter, that does not justify the ban, in fact it only shows that it is misplaced.

If i replied "he is obviously a freedom fighter" is that not also correcting hence attacking the poster?


I did not want to say the McGuinness was a freedom fighter, the point was that it was not clear cut and was not relevant to Gaddafi's murder.

Thanks,

Dave

I'll try and reword it. Essentially, if you take an emotive topic like whether McG is a terrorist or a freedom fighter and do something like substitute one for the other in someone's post all you're doing is getting under that person's skin and belittling their beliefs about something relatively important in our history. It's a very effective way of trolling many people.

This is why it's not welcome and why it was enough to earn you a very short ban after getting a warning.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

I'll try and reword it. Essentially, if you take an emotive topic like whether McG is a terrorist or a freedom fighter and do something like substitute one for the other in someone's post all you're doing is getting under that person's skin and belittling their beliefs about something relatively important in our history. It's a very effective way of trolling many people.

This is why it's not welcome and why it was enough to earn you a very short ban after getting a warning.

Was the post reported?

I know understand why people might feel that way, but a lot of post on boards are such that they can and do annoy people. But this does not result in a ban of any form.

Giving that this is such a unwelcomed thing, it should be posted in the charter.

The size of the ban is not the issue, it is the arbitrary rules that it was based on.

If you like to address the infracted post as well, I'd be grateful.

Thanks,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

Was the post reported?

I know understand why people might feel that way, but a lot of post on boards are such that they can and do annoy people. But this does not result in a ban of any form.

Giving that this is such a unwelcomed thing, it should be posted in the charter.

The size of the ban is not the issue, it is the arbitrary rules that it was based on.

If you like to address the infracted post as well, I'd be grateful.

Thanks,

Dave

The post being reported is neither here nor there. It doesn't have any effect on whether or not something is actionable.

The issue is that we don't like such posts and you had already been warned to be on good behaviour, thus the ban.


I'll look at the infraction later, have a lot of real life stuff on my plate today and can't give much time to this.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

The post being reported is neither here nor there. It doesn't have any effect on whether or not something is actionable.

The issue is that we don't like such posts and you had already been warned to be on good behaviour, thus the ban.


I'll look at the infraction later, have a lot of real life stuff on my plate today and can't give much time to this.

Thanks I appreciate this.

Dave

nesf

Right, the issue with the infraction as far as I can see is a continued flippancy and underhanded comments being made about the seriousness of the views held by another poster. You were asked to behave but after that you threw another dig at another user calling their posts prior to that facetious.

I can understand the intent and reason for the infraction as such following the warning.


Now, what you can do is ask for an Admin to review this case. They may find different findings with respect to your ban and your infraction so I would recommend that you ask for it. I'm bowing out of this now, please direct any further questions at the Admin should you choose to ask one to intervene.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

Right, the issue with the infraction as far as I can see is a continued flippancy and underhanded comments being made about the seriousness of the views held by another poster. You were asked to behave but after that you threw another dig at another user calling their posts prior to that facetious.

I can understand the intent and reason for the infraction as such following the warning.


Now, what you can do is ask for an Admin to review this case. They may find different findings with respect to your ban and your infraction so I would recommend that you ask for it. I'm bowing out of this now, please direct any further questions at the Admin should you choose to ask one to intervene.

Thanks for you time. I do appreciate it. I would like an admin to look at this, just to clarify it, so that I can take steps to avoid it.

How do I ask an Admin to have a look?

Thanks,

Dave

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

Thanks for you time. I do appreciate it. I would like an admin to look at this, just to clarify it, so that I can take steps to avoid it.

How do I ask an Admin to have a look?

Thanks,

Dave

Just post asking for an Admin to review the case.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

Just post asking for an Admin to review the case.

Thanks nesf, and I do sincerely appreciate your time on this, especially considering the floods

I'd like an Admin to review this case please.

Thanks,

Dave

davoxx

Hi,

Can an Admin confirm if they are having a look? I appreciate that things are busy, but would like to know that this is been looked into.

Thanks,

Dave

davoxx

Hi,

Can an Admin confirm if they are having a look?

Thanks,

Dave

trout

I'll take this on. Leave it with me to read over the thread & posts in question.

trout

This seems quite clear cut to me.

You took a dig at another poster, having been directly warned not to.

In the context of the forum, the 1 day ban is consistent & fair. Same goes for the infraction.

davoxx

trout wrote: »

This seems quite clear cut to me.

You took a dig at another poster, having been directly warned not to.

In the context of the forum, the 1 day ban is consistent & fair. Same goes for the infraction.

Thanks for having a look.

When you say " took a dig at another poster", do you mean "you misspelt freedom fighter ... but don't let that stop you throwing a dig at marty ..."?
As stated before that was not a "dig" as such as anyone.
I would have rated this a dig: "Could you translate this into english? I haven't had coffee yet, so let me make sure I understand what you're trying to say here, through a veil of failed facetiousness. "

Strangely though this was not deemed so when I reported it to the same mod.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75144930&postcount=78

You can understand my confusion here.

And do you mean the "complete drivel" as a warning against personal attacks?
And also someone calling all your posts "complete drivel" would seem to be a real cheap shot and a very personal attack.

Regarding the infraction, when presented with a factual point, the poster replied with a Family Guy quote, how could I be blamed for saying that I can not tell if he was being facetious or not? He gave a facetious reply to a simple question.

I must say the level of double standards here is shocking, especially as it would seem by the mods.

Also:

nesf wrote: »

The post being reported is neither here nor there. It doesn't have any effect on whether or not something is actionable.

I was led to believe that the number of complaints was responsible for action to be taken on a post. I was told this at least twice by two different mods.
But basically what I understand from this is that even if no one complains, a mod can infract a post based on loose definitions of "disrupting".

Thanks for looking into this for me, I look forward to your reply,

Dave

trout

I'm not getting into a down the rabbit hole discussion on semantics and rules-lawyering with you.

This is a clear cut ban/infraction ... both of which have since expired.

davoxx

trout wrote: »

I'm not getting into a down the rabbit hole discussion on semantics and rules-lawyering with you.

This is a clear cut ban/infraction ... both of which have since expired.

Thanks for replying so quickly.

Can you at least explain why http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75144930&postcount=78 was not infracted or banned?

And I acknowledge that both the ban and infraction have since expired, but I still maintain that they were unfairly applied.

Thanks,

Dave


PS: You do know that when you post to this thread, no email update is generated?

trout

DRP is not the place to discuss or comment on another poster / post.

This is about your ban and your infraction, both of which have been dealt with, fairly and openly, albeit not to your satisfaction.

I'm marking this thread as closed now, before it goes down any kind of rabbit hole.