Appealing an infraction In animals+pets

ducksmalone

Hi, i have been handed an infraction by moderator star pants in The Husky Mauls child thread located here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056597193&page=7

The comment i was infracted for was the following :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78325439&postcount=265

As everyone can see,i was responding in a civil manner to a poster who suggested i had no place in thread as i was focusing on A particular breed,the breed i focused on was a husky,the very same as the title of the thread.

At no stage was i trying to moderate the thread,thats key for me,how can this infraction be allowed to stand?You can see what i responded with,saying who i will be guided by,the poster continued to bait me by accusing me of hiding behind the rules,dear oh dear

And i see it is a red one,which carries a 1pt with it (i will figure the real meaning of that in my own time)compared with a yellow which was handed out to another long before i started to contribute on the thread.

id like this unfair infraction lifted please.

randylonghorn

Actually, having reviewed your interventions in that thread in full, I cannot see that your infraction is unfair; in fact, I think it is a very gentle and understated response to your behaviour in that thread.

You jump into the thread as if it's the Joe Duffy Show with a typically OTT emotional "isn't it terridble, Joe?!!" response, without troubling to read (or alternately ignoring) the discussion which has taken place up to that point, or the detailed contributions from a number of people who actually know something about dogs and their natures, and proper socialisation and training and indeed responsible ownership.

You then totally ignore reasonable (and remarkably patient) responses to you, and take issue with a poster on a tangential matter and accuse her of "watering down the issue"; you ignore all points made to you, refuse to address any questions directed at you; and launch broadsides at people and tell them to come back with "relevant" points, i.e. by which you obviously mean points which agree with you.

As you say yourself:

ducksmalone wrote: »

I will pick what suits me and ignore the rest.

You complain that someone mentions expert views without mentioning the names of the experts so that they can be judged; he replies with appropriate references and more than sufficient details as to the backgrounds and qualificatons of the authors, and you dismiss them out of hand because YOU have never heard of them!

You then promptly complain again that someone is giving statistics without references even though the reference is actually IN the post you quote ...

You tell another poster who makes the simple point that "Dogs, like children... are a result of their upbringing, feeding and exercising" that his mother would be ashamed of him for making such a statement?!

You are prepared to make "wild guesses" on your own part, and expect them to be treated like gospel, but, as mentioned already, constantly lambast people with demands for credible references for posts (even when already given) and then promptly you dismiss them out of hand because YOU have never heard of them!

In the case of the post you were carded for, its passive-aggressive backseat modding. The ironic thing to me is that you say "I'll take the guidance of the people moderating the forum thanks" but in fact you yourself refuse to take any notice of those trying to moderate the discussion; you just threaten them on others.


In fact, the only thing I see that's left to me to determine here is whether you are deliberately trolling or simply one of these people who believe that if you ignore every point put to you which doesn't suit you, no matter how well backed up, and simply keep shouting your own view at them, they will eventually get so tired of arguing with you that they will give in.

You know, on second thoughts, it doesn't really matter. In neither case should the posters or mods of API have to put up with this behaviour.

Therefore, following a full and detailed review of your posts in that thread, the infraction for backseat moderation is upheld and further, your overall behaviour has earned you a one month ban from API.

I suggest that if you wish to return to post in API after your ban has expired that you radically alter your modus operandi.

You may ofc ask an Admin to review this decision if you believe that they will see the situation any differently.

ducksmalone

After some consideration,i have decided to respond to the above post witch is littered with false quotations and assertions which are inaccurate.

It is not true to say i have not addressed questions to me,1 being,do i even own a dog? i answered yes. what breed?......... is irrelevant,at least according to the mod warning on page 1!!!

Another accusation:"You then promptly complain again that someone is giving statistics without references even though the reference is actually IN the post you quote" i have never used the word stastistics i believe the reference you are reffereing to was the copied and pasted quote from another site,which i wrongly assumed was illegal copyright as was already mentioned on thread! i never asked who the author was as i believed the moderator would have deleted the post,instead the mod decided to give a smart ars1 reply.

I also refute your claim that i "constantly lambast people with demands for credible references for posts (even when already given) and then promptly you dismiss them out of hand because YOU have never heard of them!"

simply not true,1 time i replied to a post and said while i never heard of the sources put forward,i did qualify that by saying i was not dismissing them just because i never heard of them.

You accuse me of trolling!!!!!!! how sick an individual i would be to get a rise on the internet on the back of a childs mauling?
get lost with that accusation,says more about your poor efforts at trying to moderate the moderators......... time after time after time they have refused to rain in the posters who attacked me personally for trolling:cool: being smallminded and of spelling the name of the dog in question wrong,how pathetic are you with that accusation?

and finally,if an administrator would please look at the original reason i opened this thread i will grateful, the 1 month banning is an outragous attempt to silence me in a thread dominated by spoofers with no credidentials in animal welfare where they are free to discredit individuals and a body who do great work for the ISPCA and were allowed to bait me without me being able to reply! nice forum:rolleyes:



*i have noted the fact that money was raised in the name of the ispca yet diverted elsewhere,at least thats what a poster has claimed in a post on the thread i have posted on.

The Sweeper

ducksmalone, I am familiar with the thread and with your contributions to same and watched it progress.

randylonghorn has invested quite a bit of time and attention into analysing, quite accurately, your contributions to the thread. I believe it was a valid infraction, and you would do well to take on board randylonghorn's comments.

It is not your place to make representations on behalf of third party individuals or animal welfare organisations. If such people or organisations feel they have been discredited on boards.ie, they can contact the office directly and speak to the boards.ie full time staff regarding a right to reply or removal of certain posts.

This is not the place to re-argue the points from your thread. Your infraction was deserved, and it stands.

/edited to add, after a PM query from ducksmalone, that yes, I'm also upholding randylonghorn's one month ban from the forum.