After Hours Perma-ban

FreudianSlippers

I sought consideration of placing a temporal nature or lifting the perma-ban I received over a year ago from AH. I think it's easier to set out the PMs as the correspondence seems to explain it all. I will comment after.

g'em wrote:

Hi FS,


I've had a chat with the AH Mods about this. Some were quite sympathetic to your request, others not so much. But two things were pointed out by the Mods that I think make it a fairly straightforward decision for me to deny the request:

1. From reading your posts on other fora there is very little there to suggest that your behaviour would be any different to that which got you banned in the first place,

2. You show no remorse. There is no apology, no admission of guilt, you have not held up your hands and said "I was wrong". Again, this leads us to believe that nothing has changed and lifting the ban will only serve to make more work for the already overstretched Mods.

Sorry, but the ban will not be lifted at this time and I see no reason to open a dialogue to discuss it.

g'em

FreudianSlippers wrote:

I sent the following PM to trout about 10 days ago since he had dealt with the matter 6 months ago. Since I haven't heard back I figure he's got IRL things more pressing than moi :P Or else maybe it's just the weather!

Anyway, just wondering if we could open a dialogue about the perma-ban, next steps and/or what still needs to be done regarding getting this dropped. I can't accept that there is no further recourse in the matter and I would like to get an idea on where we stand on this matter and what we can do about it if at all possible. I know you're busy too with all the extra coke and hookers that come with being an admin, but at least we can get the ball rolling.

Cheers,

FS

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Dearest trout,

I have again let 6 months pass and I would request that my indefinite ban from After Hours be reconsidered in the circumstances where I feel that I can pose a significant level of contribution with minor risk of trouble. I have had a relatively trouble free six months with only two minor warnings.

I would be happy to engage in discussion and answer any questions or concerns that the mods/cmods/admins may have in this regard.

Thanks

trout wrote:

This has been considered & discussed.

There has been a unanimous and spontaneous response from all concerned.

There is no interest from the AH mods & Rec cmods for lifting the ban nor is there any interest in placing a time frame on it other than indefinite.

Impartial observers who were no part in the original bans & DRP threads have had oversight, and they concur with the actions to date, including this one.

It may be that you believe you were an excellent contributor to AH. Your belief doesn't make it so. You may believe you were treated differently because you are a mod, again, that belief doesn't make it so.

Perhaps you hear the beat of a different drummer ... the impact is the same, and the risk/reward decision remains.

There are no winners here, and none of us have any desire to prolong what is an unpleasant and pointless exercise for all.

Please accept this confirmation of the indefinite ban and consider this matter at an end.

Del

I gainfully responded to g'em in the following manner in an attempt to alleviate or at least address the concerns raised in the PM.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

(not quoting as the message was too long)

Thanks for the reply. I'm concerned as to why you see no reason to discuss it? My request was not necessarily to have the ban lifted but rather to initiate a discussion as to what the outstanding issues are.

Now I see two issues raised which I feel are unfair and inaccurate at the outset and, further, that ought to be open to discussion at the very least.

1. From reading your posts on other fora there is very little there to suggest that your behaviour would be any different to that which got you banned in the first place

A cursory look over 5 pages of my most recent posts would lead me to question what exactly this "behaviour" is? What posts are the ones in issue? It is telling or troubling (I haven't decided which) that acceptable posting in Politics, Television, Moderators, Legal Discussion, etc. has earned me two warnings in the past 5 months but is somehow unacceptable in AH.

The point of requesting a dialogue is to ascertain what these issues are so that I can address the concerns and alleviate same. So I would be genuinely curious to know what the real problem is here... what are the additional rules in After Hours that do not exist in the aforementioned fora? Once I am aware of these then I can make sure that my posting 'style' is adjusted accordingly in After Hours.

I was initially banned for "persistent trolling, flaming and lack of respect for the forum" by yourself. I would point out that trolling is unacceptable on all fora - so I doubt that this is a concern reflected in my post on other fora (as clearly I'd be banned from them as well). Secondly, flaming is an inevitable part of the internet when discussion emotive issues (unintentional flaming that is), it happens on all fora and all posters do it at some point; if I'm being banned for intentional flaming (that is, being a flamer and inciting flaming purposely) I would also disagree and specifically point to my other posts and the rules of the charters of the other fora to suggest that, in fact, I have not engaged in any purposive flaming at any point. Lack of respect for the forum is a difficult one as it is as long as it is as short of a definition. Clearly I don't want to cause the mods increasing trouble - but what is the "respect of the forum" that they seek? I realise that it is hardly the most serious forum on boards, but that doesn't mean it is a dumping ground for garbage - which I would suggest I have never done. Furthermore, it attracts more of a "Joe Duffy" crowd when discussing political, legal or social issues - I understand that many of these people cannot be engaged with the same level of discourse that is expected of Politics, Humanities and Legal Discussion. Does that make AH any less respectable as a forum? No and I get that.

My point is simply that what I've had to acknowledge over the past year is that reasoned political debate belongs in Politics, legal in LD and social in Humanities... AH is there for the more lighthearted musings. If respecting a forum is to understand its use and know not only what to post but what not to post then I would argue that I understand and respect the forum more than a majority of the posters that are not currently banned.

2. You show no remorse. There is no apology, no admission of guilt, you have not held up your hands and said "I was wrong". Again, this leads us to believe that nothing has changed and lifting the ban will only serve to make more work for the already overstretched Mods.

To be quite honest with you, it was a year ago and I don't remember the specifics of the ban that lead to the permaban (as I recall it was a ban for a month that was escalated). I've also written all of this and not keen on logging out to see the post. Honestly, if a mod can tell me what happened without searching I'd be more than a bit worried as well... (should go without saying that I'm kidding, but it appears you can take little for granted these days).

In any event, do I agree with the decision to ban? No.
Do I understand and respect why they made the decision if they subjectively felt that the (as trout put it previously) risk/reward balance was askew? Certainly... and I obviously do not want to cause the mods extra work or trouble.
So the question is slightly unfair. How do the mods know if I feel sorry? Clearly there is not even the desire to open discussions regarding it!

It boils down to a very simple issue:
Was I wrong if I was causing more trouble than other posters? Yes.
Do I (personally) believe that I was causing more trouble than other posters? No.
Do I believe that I was being subjected to more strict penalties than other posters? Yes.
Does it matter? No. I recognise that the issue is that if they felt I was a bigger problem or that, as a mod, I should have stayed out of the rabble-rouse then I totally understand. Yes, I will hold my hands up and say that I was wrong to get down into the mud and engage. I won't say I trolled or intentionally flamed because that requires a subjective element and I know that I didn't intentionally do that... but if the issue is that I should have known better or that I engaged in unintentional behaviour that was seen as trolling or flaming then it's out of my hands isn't it? If that's the belief then that's the belief... I have to apologise for doing something that makes their day more difficult. I know the feeling of seeing a bunch of reported posts filling in your email inbox... and I'm sorry if I was a contributor to that nightmare.

All I can say is that I will attempt to post in the light of AH as a forum, not only attempt to cause no trouble but to attempt to stay out of the more emotive and/or intense topics or whatever else. But the slate needs to be wiped clean - there is no way to prove that you're not trouble unless you can show it.

These are the reasons I don't agree with not opening a dialogue. Clearly there are issues lingering and the only way to deal with them is to address them. I find it wholly unsatisfactory that I effectively get told to f-off and that there will be no discussion. Again I was not necessarily asking for the ban to be lifted but asking what I can do to get to that point.

To be quite honest, I expected a variety of different types of reply to this PM. What I received from an admin of this site slightly shocked me.

g'em wrote:

I'm not going to tell you to f-off but I am going to tell you that neither I nor the AH Mods have any interest in discussing it with you. Why? Because we say so. Because you're more hassle than you're worth. Because I have much better things to do than read through tomes of PMs next time you're banned.

I'm significantly put off by the reply. In my view two issues were raised which I addressed. It appears g'em CBF'd reading this reply (or did and has no answer to same) and just replied with a snarky and generic "f-off".
At the outset, if Admins of this site are too busy and important to do their jobs then perhaps we should be questioning if they are suitable for the position.

Secondly, what I'm asking for isn't exactly a big issue. Lift the ban or in the alternative can we at least discuss what I can do to get the ban lifted. It's not an unreasonable request and it's one that is granted to other users frequently.

If those are the two concerns, I feel they have been addressed. If the AH mods want an apology they've got it. If they want me to grovel they are taking the piss.

I don't agree with the ban in terms of the initial post which set this off. So I won't apologise or show remorse for that (lol it's like I killed someone :rolleyes:). However, if I unintentionally caused the mods problems then I apologise and will endeavour to not do so in the future.
If my posts in other fora are really so bad, why am I still on this site? Just siteban me and get it over with.

Khannie

I'll have a look at this one. Just so we're clear from the outset: Regardless of the outcome, this is to be the final time that this ban is brought to DRP.

It will take some time for me to go over the original ban, get input from the mods etc. so hold tight.

FreudianSlippers

Khannie wrote: »

I'll have a look at this one. Just so we're clear from the outset: Regardless of the outcome, this is to be the final time that this ban is brought to DRP.

It will take some time for me to go over the original ban, get input from the mods etc. so hold tight.

I believe this is only the second time. Once in relation to the escalation from a 1 month ban. This is the only drp since then (1 year on). I thought that after a reasonable period these could be reviewed? So an additional year from now I'm prohibited from asking to be unbanned? Seems severe and unfair no?

FreudianSlippers

Come to think of it, if you just unban me we never have to speak of this again lol

In reality, I just want to discuss what I can do to get the ban lifted. I am sorry for causing the mods trouble and I can only say that I will do my best to refrain from causing trouble in the future.

Khannie

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I believe this is only the second time. Once in relation to the escalation from a 1 month ban. This is the only drp since then (1 year on). I thought that after a reasonable period these could be reviewed?

There has to be a limit to reviewing at DRP level and I think we're hitting it. If this doesn't end up the way you want it, I think we're going to just have to leave it there unless the mods agree (and I will put it to them) that they will reconsider at some point further down the line. It wont be done through DRP though, it will be 100% at their discretion (again, only if there isn't agreement reached this time).

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So an additional year from now I'm prohibited from asking to be unbanned? Seems severe and unfair no?

Severe? Possibly. Unfair? I don't think so. DRP is for appealing a ban or other disciplinary measure imposed by a mod. The end of it is when an admin makes a decision. We've been there already so strictly speaking I shouldn't even entertain this, but I'm a nice guy. :pac: There isn't an appeals system associated with DRP.

FreudianSlippers

Khannie wrote: »

There has to be a limit to reviewing at DRP level and I think we're hitting it. If this doesn't end up the way you want it, I think we're going to just have to leave it there unless the mods agree (and I will put it to them) that they will reconsider at some point further down the line. It wont be done through DRP though, it will be 100% at their discretion (again, only if there isn't agreement reached this time).



Severe? Possibly. Unfair? I don't think so. DRP is for appealing a ban or other disciplinary measure imposed by a mod. The end of it is when an admin makes a decision. We've been there already so strictly speaking I shouldn't even entertain this, but I'm a nice guy. :pac: There isn't an appeals system associated with DRP.

I understand, thanks. I just want to open a discourse regarding the ban and wipe the slate clean.

Khannie

You raised a few things and I'd like to address them.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

To be quite honest, I expected a variety of different types of reply to this PM. What I received from an admin of this site slightly shocked me.

I'm significantly put off by the reply. In my view two issues were raised which I addressed. It appears g'em CBF'd reading this reply (or did and has no answer to same) and just replied with a snarky and generic "f-off".
At the outset, if Admins of this site are too busy and important to do their jobs then perhaps we should be questioning if they are suitable for the position.

This is a bad start. You inititated the use of "f-off" as a phrase in that exchange, g'em said she wasn't telling you to f-off. Her reply was brief, but that's it. She has devoted a lot of time to you, even now (because I've seen the discussions). Calling her abilities as an admin into question because she's had enough of you is very bad form indeed. I think you should apologise for calling her good name / abilities into question, but I expect that you wont.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Secondly, what I'm asking for isn't exactly a big issue. Lift the ban or in the alternative can we at least discuss what I can do to get the ban lifted. It's not an unreasonable request and it's one that is granted to other users frequently.

In fact it is a big enough issue. You've been given your appeal at DRP already. You further appealed that DRP by PM which initiated a discussion in the mod forum. That further appeal was unambiguously rejected when g'em replied to you. You further appealed this rejection with a long PM and it was further rejected (by the brief PM that you took umbrage to). I'm not sure if you've noticed this (or have infered it from the use of the word "tome" in the reply to you), but you can be verbose on occasion. The time that volunteers devote to boards is limited and this issue has taken (at a guess) several hours of moderator, category moderator and admin time. People are not inclined to give you more time than you have already been given. They are jaded.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If those are the two concerns, I feel they have been addressed. If the AH mods want an apology they've got it. If they want me to grovel they are taking the piss.

They don't see your apology in the same light as you do. It's fairly heavily qualified and in the wrong way from their perspective.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't agree with the ban in terms of the initial post which set this off. So I won't apologise or show remorse for that (lol it's like I killed someone :rolleyes:). However, if I unintentionally caused the mods problems then I apologise and will endeavour to not do so in the future.
If my posts in other fora are really so bad, why am I still on this site? Just siteban me and get it over with.

This last sentence is a big load of dramatics. I'd nearly break out the rolleyes that you're so obviously fond of. You're not at site ban level of muppetry yet and I think we all know it. That doesn't mean you're trouble free either. You have a total of 6 bans, 6 infractions and 5 warnings. That is a disgraceful disciplinary record for a mod (in fact, I'd like you to fire up a thread in the admin clinic to discuss it). I haven't investigated how many of those you have received since becoming a mod, but it is non-zero by your own admission. Clearly you have pushed things far enough to overcome any benefit of the doubt that may be given to a moderator (by virtue of other mods assuming a certain decorum from other mods) on many occasions. You seem to think that it's great that you only got 2 warnings in the last 6 months and that the mods should consider this good enough for readmission into the AH forum. This logic is heavily flawed.

On to the issue at hand:

The mods have discussed it at length and repeatedly (thank you mods). The conclusion was that they are not interested in further reviewing your case now or at any point in the future. Just so we're absolutely clear: There will be no further appeal entertained on the ban at any point. You should not contact the mods regarding this issue again. You are not to start another DRP thread.

FreudianSlippers

Khannie wrote: »

You raised a few things and I'd like to address them.



This is a bad start. You inititated the use of "f-off" as a phrase in that exchange, g'em said she wasn't telling you to f-off. Her reply was brief, but that's it. She has devoted a lot of time to you, even now (because I've seen the discussions). Calling her abilities as an admin into question because she's had enough of you is very bad form indeed. I think you should apologise for calling her good name / abilities into question, but I expect that you wont.

I certainly am not calling anyone's abilities as an admin into question. In fact, I'm saying that I don't know what admins actually do that their time is too valuable to initiate a discussion medium between reasonable adults. If this is not their "job" I'm wondering what is?

As you correctly point out, the people that do this work are volunteers. They volunteer their time to deal with these issues and if they do not have this time IRL or otherwise, why are they doing it?

This seems like an issue that should not require admin attention but seemingly it does. I have no way to initiate a discussion with the AH mods other than through an admin - what I wanted was to discuss the steps needed to get this thing reversed or limited temporally. Apparently this is not open for discussion and I'm curious as to why.

I'm sorry if it is believed that I am calling g'em's good name or abilities into question; I am not. If she feels that this is the case, she is welcome to initiate suit for defamation and I will volunteer my details upon request. As apology is no longer admission of defamation I volunteer this apology wholeheartedly, but I didn't mean to cause disrepute or show disrespect.

In fact it is a big enough issue. You've been given your appeal at DRP already. You further appealed that DRP by PM which initiated a discussion in the mod forum. That further appeal was unambiguously rejected when g'em replied to you. You further appealed this rejection with a long PM and it was further rejected (by the brief PM that you took umbrage to). I'm not sure if you've noticed this (or have infered it from the use of the word "tome" in the reply to you), but you can be verbose on occasion. The time that volunteers devote to boards is limited and this issue has taken (at a guess) several hours of moderator, category moderator and admin time. People are not inclined to give you more time than you have already been given. They are jaded.

The time I have given has also been significant. I would estimate that my "tome" would take the person of average reading capability 5 minutes to read and consider. I happen to be aware of the fact that g'em is an intelligent woman and would imagine it would take significantly less time to consider same. Apologies if my rationale is lengthy, but it addressed directly the issues at hand. My mere point on this issue is, as aforementioned, that volunteers do give their time willingly; but should not do so if they cannot actually spare that time.

My point is quite simple here: what can be done to reverse the ban, what kind of discussion can we have regarding it. It's not difficult to see that this is the point and claiming that I'm "disputing" things is erroneous at best. I have not "appealed" the ban since trout considered it 6 months ago. What I have done here is an attempt to initiate a conversation regarding the removal of the ban which was refused without reason.

They don't see your apology in the same light as you do. It's fairly heavily qualified and in the wrong way from their perspective.

How so? It's actually not qualified at all. I apologise for causing any undue trouble. It was certainly not my intention to do so and if I so did then I apologise.

How is that qualified exactly?

This last sentence is a big load of dramatics. I'd nearly break out the rolleyes that you're so obviously fond of.

Ah yes, once in this thread... Super fond of them. Tell you what? Remove them from the site, they are featured prominently in the little box to the right; a promotion of their use to indicate sarcasm.

You're not at site ban level of muppetry yet and I think we all know it. That doesn't mean you're trouble free either. You have a total of 6 bans, 6 infractions and 5 warnings. That is a disgraceful disciplinary record for a mod (in fact, I'd like you to fire up a thread in the admin clinic to discuss it).

I'll get right on that.

I haven't investigated how many of those you have received since becoming a mod, but it is non-zero by your own admission. Clearly you have pushed things far enough to overcome any benefit of the doubt that may be given to a moderator (by virtue of other mods assuming a certain decorum from other mods) on many occasions. You seem to think that it's great that you only got 2 warnings in the last 6 months and that the mods should consider this good enough for readmission into the AH forum. This logic is heavily flawed.

How is it flawed? It shows that I have disengaged from "trouble posting" and am on the straight and narrow. Two ridiculous warnings mind you.

Beruthiel

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm saying that I don't know what admins actually do that their time is too valuable to initiate a discussion medium between reasonable adults. If this is not their "job" I'm wondering what is?

FS
I will tell you one thing that our 'job' isn't, and that is dealing with Moderators in the DRP.
Why?
Because we expect the Moderators of this site to behave themselves and work within the rules of whatever forum they are posting in.
If they cannot do that, then they should not be mods in the first place.

We expect that our fellow volunteers do not add to our work load.
We expect our fellow volunteers to respect their colleagues enough not to cause them extra work or hassle.
We expect our fellow volunteers, (as you put it yourself) to behave like reasonable adults.

Now I am of the opinion that a permaban means just that.
If the Mods of AH wish to go back on that, then they are welcome to do so, but I for one am certainly not interested in forcing them.

As Khannie suggested already, please start a thread in the Admin Clinic so we can discuss this and your ban/infraction record.

Thanks.

Khannie

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I certainly am not calling anyone's abilities as an admin into question. In fact, I'm saying that I don't know what admins actually do that their time is too valuable to initiate a discussion medium between reasonable adults. If this is not their "job" I'm wondering what is?

It is her job. To a point. She had a discussion with you, then ended it because she felt you weren't getting the point.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As you correctly point out, the people that do this work are volunteers. They volunteer their time to deal with these issues and if they do not have this time IRL or otherwise, why are they doing it?

As I said before, their volunteered time is finite and any time given to one task necessarily takes away from others that could be done. Your particular task has taken a long time and input from many people to deal with.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This seems like an issue that should not require admin attention but seemingly it does. I have no way to initiate a discussion with the AH mods other than through an admin - what I wanted was to discuss the steps needed to get this thing reversed or limited temporally. Apparently this is not open for discussion and I'm curious as to why.

I've told you why: They are tired of dealing with you. You were permanently banned. You asked if they would consider it, they did and got a negative reply from an admin. Unhappy with that you then fired up this DRP thread (which, as I have said, I shouldn't even have entertained and am now beginning to regret). They are under no obligation to open negotiations with you. You've had your DRP appealing the permanent ban and it was rejected. That's the end of it. As a courtesy, on your request, g'em asked the mods if they would like to reconsider. They didn't want to. Following this DRP thread I further engaged with them. They aren't interested in any further back and forth with you on the matter and I fully understand and support that.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry if it is believed that I am calling g'em's good name or abilities into question; I am not. If she feels that this is the case, she is welcome to initiate suit for defamation and I will volunteer my details upon request. As apology is no longer admission of defamation I volunteer this apology wholeheartedly, but I didn't mean to cause disrepute or show disrespect.

Fair enough. Thanks. I'm fairly sure that there wont be any legal proceedings forthcoming.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The time I have given has also been significant. I would estimate that my "tome" would take the person of average reading capability 5 minutes to read and consider.

But not reply to. Also many mods, cat mods and admins will read this thread.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I happen to be aware of the fact that g'em is an intelligent woman and would imagine it would take significantly less time to consider same. Apologies if my rationale is lengthy, but it addressed directly the issues at hand. My mere point on this issue is, as aforementioned, that volunteers do give their time willingly; but should not do so if they cannot actually spare that time.

As I said: Their time is limited and at this point you have reasonably exhausted your allocation of that time.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My point is quite simple here: what can be done to reverse the ban, what kind of discussion can we have regarding it.

I have answered that unambiguously: There is nothing that you can do to reverse the ban and there will be no further discussion regarding it. They considered your points repeatedly. They do not want to engage any further.