Ban from Infrastructure

Tragedy

PM'ed dubhthach two days ago and haven't received any kind of a response so going ahead with posting here.


There's a long running thread on the NCH(New Children's Hospital) on the Infrastructure forum. Ever since I've joined boards, I've posted on the Crumlin threads as
1)I used to work there so know a lot more than the average poster and like to correct people on facts and stuff like it's administrative structure, how it's funded etc
and
2)Because I worked there, even though I have no kids and amn't likely to for a long time I'm still passionate about the future of children's healthcare in Ireland because of my experiences with patients and parents.
I've never posted PR, spin or what have you, always just tried to impart knowledge(albeit combatively as is my unfortunate wont) and correct people who posted either lies or incorrect statements.

This is also the case in the above thread. A user (MYOB) comes on the thread, claims to have inside knowledge and then goes on to post completely fabricated "facts". I can't definitively state that he was lying as I don't know his intent, but its quite obvious that he knows extremely little about
A)Crumlin Hospital
B)How consultants and junior doctors work in our Health Service(e.g. consultants sitting at multiple hospitals, hospitals sharing on call NCHDs at night
C)Traffic around the area
D)etc etc

He also posts statistics that he claims are factually true(95% of medical professionals support the move to the Mater site for the NCH) while refusing, repeatedly, to provide any kind of evidence to support this while others have posted a fair amount of evidence that a large number of Irish medical professionals disagree with the Mater site.
He posts 'facts' such as " I have frequently seen ambulances needing Garda bike escorts to get there - something I've never seen at Temple St." which is completely undermined both by my personal experience from working there (which I'm more than happy to substantiate if it matters) as well as by numerous posts both on the Emergency Services forum on boards.ie and other irish fora by Emergency Services workers stating that garda escorts are extremely rare for Ambulances.

I could go on and on, but I understand this most likely seems irrelevant to the DRP so I don't want to make this too long.

However, I was banned for <sic> 'blatantly insulting another poster' by claiming he was 'full of ****'.

Firstly, I believe there is a clear difference between disparaging a posters facts (which I believe I fairly comprehensively addressed several times and yet which he kept changing the goalposts, refusing to back up any of his so-called facts, repeatedly deliberately misquoted me and kept posting ad hominems by claiming that I and other detractors were vested interests - rather than addressing what we posted) and disparaging a poster. The majority of MYOB's facts and statements on that thread are demonstrably wrong. Despite this, he kept posting more facts, claiming anyone who disagreed 'was a vested interest' (which included me, and how exactly is that conducive to a discussion when a poster claims anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a vested interest and ergo can't comment?) and refused to address anyone's calls for evidence. Hence why I believe he is full of ****, hence why I said he was full of ****.

Secondly, I didn't reply with "You're full of ****". I explained why and how he was wrong as well as saying he was "incredibly full of ****" when talking about this particular aspect(paediatric consultants). Combative, sure. Insulting, hardly.

I said he was "incredibly full of ****" because he claimed no paediatric hospital has specialised consultants, they only have general paediatric consultants and specialised consultants are drafted in ad hoc from adult hospitals. This is wrong. Completely, totally and utterly wrong. Anyone with even an inkling of how the health service works knows this is wrong. And yet he posted this after stating he had inside knowledge. Hence "full of ****" because he was, to be quite blunt, full of ****. He wasn't just wrong or incorrectly informed, which is fine. He claimed to have inside knowledge in order to lend added credibility and then posted something that someone with even the most passing experience with medicine(whether as a patient, a worker, a friend or a relation) would know to be incredibly wrong. That's why I said full of ****.

He then asked if I wanted to retract the 'full of ****' accusation after he again posted completely untrue and inaccurate information which can be shown to wrong by a quick google search of publically available information. I said no because he was still holding on to his original 'fact' that I had claimed was full of **** to begin with.

So to summise, I was banned for insulting another member based on one statement that he was 'full of ****', a statement on which I showed how I believed the poster to be full of ****. I don't think this is fair or in the spirit of the rules. How does full of **** differ from "completely wrong on this subject" "inaccurate in your facts and knowledge" "posting completely wrong 'facts' and information' etc etc? Again, its more combative but it doesn't differ in meaning or level of insult in any way.

You're an idiot = insult.
Your opinion is idiotic and here is why = not an insult.
You're (a) **** = insult.
You're full of **** (on this subject) and here is why = not an insult.

Besides which, the statement I was banned for was made on the 24th of February and none of the mods seemed to have any problem with it. Only when MYOB asked me if I still thought was he full of **** and I replied to the affirmative was I banned, which was ~10 days and many pages later.

Sorry if this is all convoluted or confusing, but I really do believe this to be a wrong decision by dubhtach, both as an overreaction (7day ban) and a perfect example of how a moderator ignores a user completely uninterested in debate/discussion, who posts nonsense and refuses to back any of it up, who stifles discussion through wilful ignorance and loudness and instead jumps on someone who happens to actually know a little and makes a fairly innocuous statement when proving that the other poster is posting drivel. A combative and argumentative tone would have been completely unnecessary if dubhthach had have done his job in the first place. Unfortunately, there seems to be a running theme across most of boards lately that whoever shouts the loudest wins. Doesn't matter what the content of their post is, doesn't matter if they have any evidence, proof, experience, knowledge or facts. As long as they shout the hardest for the longest, they tie up threads until everyone else stops bothering and they 'win'. I'm guilty of long multiquote posts, but at least (on politics, motors and here) try find some shreds of evidence to back up my opinions.

Ta, and sorry again for the length of this post!

Scofflaw

OK - I don't have a problem with the infraction, because the line between "you're full of ****" and "an insult" is actually non-existent.

However, I don't see that without any prior warning it warrants a ban of any kind, let alone the threat of a permaban. I'll get second opinions here, and I'll have to ask the mod in question for their view of the matter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

I've spoken to dubhthach, and we're agreed that the ban was probably too much, although he described himself as "surprised to see that level of hostility in the forum", which is what provoked the ban - and is something you've alluded to (and explained) above. However, insulting other users is never acceptable.

Anyway - ban overturned. Infraction was warranted, as standard for insulting another user, and remains.

cordially,
Scofflaw