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

Outrageous Ban

Options
  • 16-04-2013 10:45am
    #1
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭


    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    I don't know how you can go apportioning blame at this early stage, there's a conspiracy theory forum if you want to speculate about the US Government.
    sfwcork wrote: »
    Excuse me WHAT. Where did I mention any conspiracy or are you seeing what you want to see

    All i did was post my feelings on the incident.Simple as
    K-9 wrote: »
    Clarify



    that for me please, you mean the police, army, Obama, what? Because it seems very speculative to me.
    sfwcork wrote: »
    wrote:
    K-9

    Clarify




    I would rather not actually as it will clearly derail the thread.
    sfwcork wrote: »
    I posted my Opinion or my feelings as other people did.Just because you dont agree with them is your issue.

    If you cant see the irony or telling me I am derailing the trhead while calling me out for not clarifying something which would more than likely derail the thread then I dont know what to do with you

    End Of
    K-9 wrote: »
    That's the problem, you refuse to clarify what your feelings are, just post some vague guff about the American powers and then go on about derailing threads.



    As a mod, I asked you politely to clarify what exactly you meant as you were derailing the thread, you refused to. Congratulations, you succeeded and that will be the end of it, banned.

    This is an absolute load of bull.

    NO fair minded person could interpret that sequence of events above as "derailing".

    his original comment was:

    "I have zero empathy for the powers that be in the middle of it"

    Which was CLEARLY alluding to the fact that America as a nation does some awful stuff worldwide and that he has no empathy for the "powers" at the top.

    Since when is having no empathy for something an attempt at suggesting a conspiracy? No conspiracy was suggested here (at all) and the poster himself tried to call it a day before the MOD tried to press him on the issue when it could have been left at that.

    If anyone is derailing that thread it's the Mod here.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    his original comment was:

    "I have zero empathy for the powers that be in the middle of it"

    Which was CLEARLY alluding to the fact that America as a nation does some awful stuff worldwide and that he has no empathy for the "powers" at the top.

    It was not clearly alluding to that.


  • Options
    #3
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    smash wrote: »
    It was not clearly alluding to that.

    I've no empathy for Kim-Jong Il but i have empathy for the North Korean people.

    Either way, whether i give or refuse empathy it's nothing to do with "conspiracies"

    Furthermore the poster attempted to diffuse the situation by not expanding on the point.

    Disgraceful ban.


  • Options
    #4
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    He was quite clearly linking the bombing with American foreign policy without any evidence and damning them for it. We all have our theories but we don't present them as fact and use it for political point scoring.


  • Options
    #5
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    Either way, whether i give or refuse empathy it's nothing to do with "conspiracies"

    Sorry but nobody has taken responsibility for this attack and there's no evidence to point towards any attacker either. Mentioning the powers behind it, is absolutely alluding to a conspiracy theory.


  • Options
    #6
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    SB2013 wrote: »
    He was quite clearly linking the bombing with American foreign policy without any evidence and damning them for it. We all have our theories but we don't present them as fact and use it for political point scoring.

    Empathy is relating to and feeling sympathy for the plight of others.

    He has no obligation to empathise with the US Government and it's quite a stretch to propose he was suggesting a conspiracy.

    What is certain is he attempted to let the thread move on but for some shambolic moderation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    smash wrote: »
    Sorry but nobody has taken responsibility for this attack and there's no evidence to point towards any attacker either. Mentioning the powers behind it, is absolutely alluding to a conspiracy theory.

    he did NOT say the powers behind it, he said

    "i have no empathy for the powers in the middle"

    The Government. He doesn't feel sorry for the US Government. So what?

    That's a million miles from suggesting a conspiracy that they were behind it or to blame on policy grounds.


  • Options
    #8
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    in reality whoever committed the attack, whether it's a right wing nut job or islamists did it because of their dislike of American government policies, be it neo-imperialism in the middle east or federal gun control legislation.


  • Options
    #9
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    he did NOT say the powers behind it, he said

    "i have no empathy for the powers in the middle"

    The Government. He doesn't feel sorry for the US Government. So what?

    That's a million miles from suggesting a conspiracy that they were behind it or to blame on policy grounds.

    Why mention it? It has nothing to do with anything....


  • Options
    #10
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    smash wrote: »
    Why mention it? It has nothing to do with anything....

    he's allowed to express empathy or lack of empathy, it's called having feelings and opinions.


  • Options
    #11
    Orim
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Orim


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    he did NOT say the powers behind it, he said

    "i have no empathy for the powers in the middle"

    The Government. He doesn't feel sorry for the US Government. So what?

    That's a million miles from suggesting a conspiracy that they were behind it or to blame on policy grounds.

    Where does he say it was the US government?

    I would read that as alluding to NWO/Illuminati style conspiracy nonsense. The vagueness of the post and the use of word powers would lead me to this conclusion. I believe that most people if they wanted to say it was the government would just say it.

    Anyway IBTL, as this forum is not for discussion of individual bans and if the user wants to dispute he has the DRP.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Orim wrote: »
    Where does he say it was the US government?

    I would read that as alluding to NWO/Illuminati style conspiracy nonsense. The vagueness of the post and the use of word powers would lead me to this conclusion. I believe that most people if they wanted to say it was the government would just say it.

    Anyway IBTL, as this forum is not for discussion of individual bans and if the user wants to dispute he has the DRP.

    apologies thought feedback was for opinions on moderation.

    anyway i'm out. scandalous ban but sure such is life.


  • Options
    #13
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    Empathy is relating to and feeling sympathy for the plight of others.

    He has no obligation to empathise with the US Government and it's quite a stretch to propose he was suggesting a conspiracy.

    What is certain is he attempted to let the thread move on but for some shambolic moderation.

    Yeah it'd be great to be able to throw in digs and go ahead without anyone calling you up on it. His post had no other goal than to make a political point.


  • Options
    #14
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #15
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    he's allowed to express empathy or lack of empathy, it's called having feelings and opinions.

    Stop the nonsense. It was clearly a stab at a conspiracy theory. You seem to be the only one who can't see it though.


  • Options
    #16
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Mod warning is clear as day in OP. We are taking a zero tolerance approach to any messing. Zero tolerance means just that.


  • Options
    #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    K-9 allowed him more time in the thread than he deserved. He questioned a mod in thread which is clearly against the rules. There is a mod warning in the OP mentioning zero tolerance. Plus he also refused to clarify a point he had made, had it genuinely not been a suggestion of a conspiracy then clarification would have resolved any issue. He refused to and so got banned.

    I fail to see any reason for your outrage. Ban seems perfectly justified.


  • Options
    #18
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    No way you can say that with 100% certainty so there's really no point in saying it.


  • Options
    #20
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #21
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Sacramento wrote: »
    K-9 allowed him more time in the thread than he deserved. He questioned a mod in thread which is clearly against the rules. There is a mod warning in the OP mentioning zero tolerance. Plus he also refused to clarify a point he had made, had it genuinely not been a suggestion of a conspiracy then clarification would have resolved any issue. He refused to and so got banned.

    I fail to see any reason for your outrage. Ban seems perfectly justified.

    Indeed, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and politely asked him to explain, despite him challenging my mod post on the thread, a no-no. There's a difference between a poster and a mod asking for clarification.

    Anyway, still in pm discussion so we'll see.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    It wasn't clear if you were asking as a moderator or as a poster though.

    Normally when a mod makes a ruling on a post/thread and asks for a reply they state they are doing it as a mod, ie, in bolded text prefaced with Mod: etc. You just asked him to clarify and he said no.

    The ban was bull**** and you know it.

    You claimed you didn't want the thread derailed but insisted on derailing it.


  • Options
    #23
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    No. You can only speculate.

    I have no reason to want to continue addressing anything you say if you are unwilling to agree with very reasonable point I made above.


  • Options
    #24
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If clarifying his point would have resulted in a ban then how is it an overreaction to still ban?


  • Options
    #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Seaneh wrote: »
    It wasnt very clear if you were asking as a moderator or as a poster though.

    Normally when a mod makes a ruling on a post/thread and asks for a reply they state they are doing it as a mod, ie, in bolded t
    ext prefaced with Mod: etc. You just asked him to clarify and he said no.

    The ban was bull**** and you know it.


    When a mod starts off with "Mod:" as K-9 did, I have no idea how it wasn't very clear to you he wasn't speaking as a mod.

    Original post:
    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    I don't know how you can go apportioning blame at this early stage, there's a conspiracy theory forum if you want to speculate about the US Government.


  • Options
    #26
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Sacramento wrote: »
    When a mod starts off with "Mod:" as K-9 did, I have no idea how it wasn't very clear to you he wasn't speaking as a mod.

    Original post:

    He didn't request clarification in that post though, did he? He just made a statement.


  • Options
    #27
    Orim
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Orim


    Seaneh wrote: »
    It wasn't clear if you were asking as a moderator or as a poster though.

    Normally when a mod makes a ruling on a post/thread and asks for a reply they state they are doing it as a mod, ie, in bolded text prefaced with Mod: etc. You just asked him to clarify and he said no.

    The ban was bull**** and you know it.

    You claimed you didn't want the thread derailed but insisted on derailing it.

    The way he did in the first step
    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    I don't know how you can go apportioning blame at this early stage, there's a conspiracy theory forum if you want to speculate about the US Government.

    Granted it wasn't explicitly stated the clarification request was a mod request but it was a follow on from the user questioning the mod instruction to take it to the conspiracies forum. In this case I believe it could be taken for granted.

    If anything K-9 was too lenient, because action should have been taken as soon as a mod intstruction was questioned.


  • Options
    #28
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Seaneh wrote: »
    He didn't request clarification in that post though, did he? He just made a statement.


    Then sfwcork questioned him, a reprimandable offence that K-9 let slide while affording him an opportunity for clarification which sfwcork refused to do. If anything, sfwcork could have been banned even quicker.


  • Options
    #29
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Orim wrote: »
    The way he did in the first step



    Granted it wasn't explicitly stated the clarification request was a mod request but it was a follow on from the user questioning the mod instruction to take it to the conspiracies forum. In this case I believe it could be taken for granted.

    If anything K-9 was too lenient, because action should have been taken as soon as a mod intstruction was questioned.

    This is nonsense.

    The poster in question made a 2 line post. Mod replied with the post you quoted. There was another reply and then the mod, without stating he was doing so as a mod, asked for clarification on meaning of the first post. the poster said he didn't want to derail the thread and would rather not comment further. Mod banns him.

    That's a bull**** ban.


    If the moderator had stated he was seeking clarification AS A MODERATOR then there is a case for a ban, the mod asking for clarification as a poster and then banning the person who said no is stupidity.

    Totally lack of consistency and abuse of process.


  • Options
    #30
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,305 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    If sfwcork wishes to dispute their ban they can do so in the Dispute resolution Forum. However we do not discuss specific individual's infractions or bans with third parties.

    /thread closed


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement