Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Christianity ban
Options
-
06-11-2011 2:39am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
As for part two of your question, I don't know the answer, the mod will have to answer that.
I'm presuming that is an invitation for me to enter this thread?
ISAW's infraction did not become a ban. The infraction and the ban are two separate issues.
The infraction, as already noted above, was a clear cut case of backseat modding.
The ban was something that had been building for a long time, due to ISAW's posting style reducing thread after thread to train-wrecks. He continually takes threads down rabbit trails by arguing over minutae, by making posts that link homosexuality to paedophilia, by introducing off-topic references to Stalin and other atheist atrocities, and by accusing those who disagree with him of being part of some gigantic anti-Catholic prejudice. The ban was introduced only after great reluctance, but his posting comes across as coat-trailing, which attracts trolls to the Forum like flies to honey.
Having said that the infraction and the ban were separate - his behaviour after the infraction was symptomatic of the problem. I explained to him that disputing a mod decision inthread was unacceptable, and pointed out the parameters for discussion in the thread in question. He then sent me a series of PMs disputing the decision, accusing me of contradicting myself. After I had twice stressed that I was not going to engage in exchanges of long complex PMs with him, complete with extensive use of multiquotes, he continued to PM me in the same fashion, accusing me of serving the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic agenda.
I do not view the ban as being a punishment for bad behaviour, but rather (like the ban ISAW received from politics) as a reluctant step to protect the forum from being totally disrupted. Imagine a Forum where numerous threads end up like this one in DR. No-one would want to moderate such a madhouse.
0 -
Non bis in idem does not necessarily apply here. You are mistaking the DR forum on boards.ie as a court of law. It is not. This is a dispute resolution forum run in the main by volunteers, and is a private venue legally owned by boards Ltd.
Of course the principle applies. You may mean it isn't a legal requirement. Nor is fair play. But boards set up a dispute resolution process for a reason. We are supposed to accept that that while fair play is not a legal requirement that it does not apply?That's two questions.
Actually it is a composite. But it is simple enough to answer.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75155443&postcount=2296The first part is easily answered - your infraction was for "Back Seat Modding" and the moderator message to you at 23:52 on 27-10-2011 was:
The infraction was related to this post where you clearly disputed moderator decisions on thread.
The threads merged were not all threads on clerical child abuse. One for example was on whether Cardinal Brady should resign for matters related to knowing about child abuse.
It was a Catholics only (see post 8)
That was in response to this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75166626&postcount=2308
which is NOT a moderator decision. I have been told in the past that moderator decisions are done in bold type face
I didnt dispute a decision the decision was in fact posted by me for information.
I had gone into this over a year before in an exchange with Mr Pudding. I pointed out the whole background to this by PM to PDN. I pointed out all child abuse was to be referred to the clerical child abuse megathread. Something by the way which is not being enforced at the moment because clerical child abuse IS being referred to in other threads. He was not interested in how this decision came about and asked for a source for the decision. I supplied it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72734433&postcount=1076
Ruling: infraction upheld.
[/quoter]
As for part two of your question, I don't know the answer, the mod will have to answer that.[/QUOTE]
okay here is what PDN stated:The ban was...
1. ...takes threads down rabbit trails by arguing over minutae
That is a banning reason is it? so where did it happen?
If posters continually post claiming say a report claims 4% of Roman Catholic Priests are child sex abusers then why should I be banned for saying “that report was misquoted by you several months ago [reference to prior post included] and you are reposting the same unsupported claims today”?
Why should I be banned for pointing these “minutiae” out?
2. ...making posts that link homosexuality to paedophilia
Where? In fact if you read the post after my infarction it specifically does the opposite and points to peer reviewed evidence that abuse by pedophiles ( interested in prepubescent kids) when concerned with clerics in particular is NOT homosexual in nature.
PDN claims pedophilia is not a subject to be brought up in a discussion on pedophiles and homosexuality not be brought into a separate discussion on homosexual “marriage”? these were two of the three threads I was posting to over the last week or so.
I also asked PDN to cite examples where he claimed I raised homosexuality or pedophilia out of context and he would probably find in every case someone else highlighted this point and cherry picked it out of a wider context. I also offered to apologise for each and every case where such references were shown to be out of context.
PDN replied “I have no intention of having a protracted discuission over each individual case. I have pointed out to you a posting pattern, ...”
In fact he hadn't pointed out a single example just claimed “a pattern”
3. ...accusing those who disagree with him of being part of some gigantic anti-Catholic prejudice
Where? I didn't claim PDN was consciously biased but it is quite clear above that bias is evidence among mods. Sure even in this post i am being told by an Admin not to expect the same standard of fair play that one would get outside of their privately owned company.
4. ...I explained to him that disputing a mod decision in thread was unacceptable.
I didn't dispute the decision in thread. I if you recollect supplied the original decision before anything was stated. PDN then put a spin on that decision that only clericalchild abuse was to be discussed. But Fanny Craddock had posted in specific query by me about whether only clerical abuyse could be discussed and surely other related matters or non clerical;abuse could also be discussed in context. I informed PDN allthis by PM.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72734433&postcount=1076there can be reference to sexual abuse outside religious institutions if it is for the purposes of comparing it to abuse within religious institutions.
5... as a reluctant step to protect the forum from being totally disrupted.
But the anti Catholic posters are still posting and still posting comments about child abusing priests to other threads so the ruling isn't being followed as you say is it?
So far you haven't addressed the viscious personal attacks which I was subjected to right since I entered around page 22 and countered all relevant posts up to page 22. Funnily that was in March 2010 and I had the same posting style then! And all that time PDN was a moderator of that forum.
Ironically the same posting style maintained throughout and the same thread are alive and well almost two years later.the same disproved posters drive by occasionally and make the same old disproved allegations and I challenge them and expose the holes in their unsupported claims. Indeed PDN has even agreed that they post fallacy! It does not say much about the "disruption" claim but it does say a lot about my conspiracy theory especially considering the selfsame anti Catholic posters are currently posting claims about Roman pedo priest child abuse in other threads in the Christianity forum.
PDN added in PM:your preoccupations with atheist atrocities, homosexuality and paedophilia are undermining the efforts of the mods to make the forum a place where Christians can engage in debate and discussion. You attract trolls like flies to honey, primarily because many of your own posts look, to those not familiar with your unusual posting style, like they are trollish.
In essence this is an admission that things are to be judged not on what they actually say but on how they “look” to him! This is in spite of the fact that several other ( probably mostly Catholic) posters have stated they do not look that way at all! Why cant others just ignore?
I can produce extensive evidence of anti catholic rhetoric in the said thread. I can also produce several references to me being among other things...
1.blamed for my own abuse
2.blamed for enabling child sex abusers
3.being called “a priest” as if it was an insult
4.claimed I was in the paid employ of the Catholic church nd that is why I was posting
In spite of the personal attacks I have suffered I have continued to post. I posted twice more.
I was apparently banned fordue to continually dragging threads down rabbit trails and getting involved in pointless disputes over minutae.
But this is claiming I am being banned maybe for something I posted last year when they allowed it!
What minutae and how are they pointless? -Examples?
It is not a pointless debate when people continually claim prior falsehoods to be true!
The same happened about WMD in Iraq and possibly millions of deaths resulted because we were not prepared to dispute it!
The same happened when “people in authority” told us not to worry about construction or banks or childrens homes!
Why now should I be gagged and pilloried when I clearly support what I say and at every chance I get I point out media myths? Why should they be allowed to repost the untruths and I be banned for forensically pointing out the truth?0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement