Appealing a warning and the severity of the punishment

pirelli

Thread where a warning was issued.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056556428

Post no.83
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056556428&page=6

A poster on that thread constantly referred to the people in the video as freeman and went as far as to call them evil. Posters started to post lot's of satirical parodies poking fun at the people in the video as freeman.

However there was nothing to connect these people or their group with freeman. They are more closely aligned with TD's from the united left alliance.

That was my position on the matter. At all other times I stayed within the confines of the OP.

Pirelli's DiMaggio like streak for missing the point and hitting the nub of the nonsense remains unblemished.
EDIT: Also your references to Irish history are simplistic and overly populist, not to mention utterly pointless as the analogy does not stand up to any scrutiny to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Land League and the issues surrounding it

In response to this i simply said that the leaving cert history was simple. (The vast majority of people have a leaving cert knowledge of general irish history.
I was not sniping or being personally abusive). I also retorted that it was this poster that was missing the point and asked him to explain how an eviction was a victory for his anti - freeman views ( which were irrelevant to the thread) and a defeat for the constitutional waving man when the order to evict had already been made prior to the events portrayed in the video.

The OP had even expressed his sympathy on that matter of eviction and the purpose of the thread was to discover of what the man was saying had any legal merit. The inevitable eviction was simply a locksmith bolting the locks of the house and had no bearing on the validity of what the man in the video was saying about the law.


I have permission to post from freudian slipppers:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I, literally, do not have the patience to explain why people reacting to this Freeman nonsense is different than being threatened by it. So I'll either leave it for someone else to say or come back when I don't feel like banging my head against a wall

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If/when you can show me any legitimacy to Freeman thinking then I will accept your point regarding the reaction of the legal profession and explain why they aren't threatened by it.

Otherwise, it's useless to even start explaining why there is no "threat". There is 15 pages of this garbage now and new threads every day about Freeman "logic", it's not just you... the whole thing is headwrecking.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Look, snow ghost: I apologise for mildly snapping at you - it wasn't you, I'm just frustrated with this Freeman stuff and the idea or even notion that there is some conspiracy where we're all taught there is an alternative freeman law and now that it's out the legal profession are threatened and attempting some cover up is ludicrous.

I have quoted Freudian slippers because he has very strong views about freeman and he was very much heated on the subject. I was not being personally abusive and I Pm'd him and explained this but he ignored my PM. I really feel that in this instance he misjudged my reply to the poster.

I feel my ban from the legal forum is too long in relation to this and should be for a lesser period of time. I am not disputing the mods are unhappy with me on this forum and will point out infractions from 4 years ago and i doubt they will overturn their ban but it is too excessive in relation to this warning.

I ask that the duration of the ban is reduced. I never disputed the infraction ( I should not have reacted to that posters bait) but i fail to see how i failed to show contrition ( as a moderator has claimed upholding my ban) when i have appealed the warning back too the moderator who ignored it.

Regards

Pirelli

pirelli

Additional facts about ban:

I was banned for ignoring a moderators instructions.

Discussion can become heated, we don't object to that, but when a moderator issues a warning on a thread to reign things in, it stops a heated discussion from turning into a mess.


Post no.90
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056556428&page=6

Spear

Even mods don't get to reply to a DRP thread unless invited to do so by the cmod or admins. So I've rolled this back to the initial complaint and a cmod will respond.

Scofflaw

Apologies - pirelli should really have had a response before now. Unfortunately, I suspect that some of the delay in response is the result of there being little to say about this, but it needing to be relatively precise.

What I see in the thread - in the Legal Discussions forum, which is an important point - is something of a trainwreck, which as far as I can see results very much from the style of pirelli's defence of the guy in the video and the forum the thread is in. As Freudian Slippers said:

Second, this type of shallow and vague style posts may fly in After Hours and to some extent Politics, but if you want to continue to post here you need to be slightly more in-depth vis-à-vis your legal argument. You seem to be purposely missing/misrepresenting the issues here.

I would agree with the mod's characterisation of pirelli's tactics in defence of the "freeman" in the video, and I'd also agree that someone who presumes that shallow pseudo-legalistic argument is adequate in the Legal Discussions forum probably has no place posting there, particularly when there's a strong likelihood of their future intervention in respect of a particular hobby-horse.

We don't really allow such arguments in Politics either. We would be perhaps slightly more accommodating of it purely on the basis that shallow pseudo-legalistic argument is a very common part of political debate, but that doesn't mean we're particularly happy with that fact - and certainly we do ban people for the kind of round and round in circles stuff pirelli was at in this thread.

On balance, I can't really see any reason to rescind the ban, because I don't see pirelli as particularly likely to change either his stance or his methods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nesf

Apologies pirelli, this really should have been dealt with sooner. I agree with Scofflaw on this one, I'm afraid.

If you wish you may ask an Admin to review this.