Banned but unable to communicate with Mod

J C

I have been told this morning that I'm banned from the Christianity Forum for no valid reason that I can determine - and the Ban seems to be Boards-wide and not just a forum ban.

I have PM'd the Mod who banned me - but because I'm banned, I'm now unable to recover any message he may send me.
When I try to logon (to read my messages) the system won't let me, because I'm banned, I suppose.
How do I recover messages or send them when I'm banned?

I'm sure there is some system ... it's just that I don't know how it works.

Thanks

PS It's letting me in now ... so I'll await the Mod's answer.

Zaph

You have only been banned from Christianity. If you were sitebanned you would not be able to post here. As you are not sitebanned, there is no reason why you should not be able to access your PMs or read any PMs sent to you. Only in the event of a siteban is access to the PM system removed. As I've just sent and received a PM successfully, there doesn't seem to be any problem with the system. We're not getting any other reports of issues with PMs, so I suspect that the problem is at your end. I suggest that you log off Boards, clear your cache and log back in to see how you get on.

J C

Zaph wrote: »

You have only been banned from Christianity. If you were sitebanned you would not be able to post here. As you are not sitebanned, there is no reason why you should not be able to access your PMs or read any PMs sent to you. Only in the event of a siteban is access to the PM system removed. As I've just sent and received a PM successfully, there doesn't seem to be any problem with the system. We're not getting any other reports of issues with PMs, so I suspect that the problem is at your end. I suggest that you log off Boards, clear your cache and log back in to see how you get on.

Thanks

J C

I have exchanged PMs with the Mod.
Unfortunately, he has upheld the two week ban for 'trolling' - I wasn't trolling and I can't see any reason why my post breaks any forum rules.

I understand from the dispute resolution flow chart, that I must now progress my appeal via this thread.

Here is the post that I was banned for :-

J C wrote:

... so it turns out that Creation and the Flood is the 'watertight' origins theory ... where all of the questions and objections have been substantively answered ...
... and M2M Evolution is still stuck at the Natural Selection of pre-existing diversity ... with no substantial theory on how the diversity was created, in the first place.

Love and best wishes to you all.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682&page=238

M2M Evolution is shorthand for Microbes to Man Evolution (as distinct from Evolution within Kinds, which I agree happens).

I summarised what I believe to be the factual situation (on the thread and in the real world) in the post above.

My posting was reasoned, reasonable and courteous - and I don't think that it merited any censure.

J C

Hi Guys,

Has anybody looked into this. I'm now banned for over a day for a post that consisted of two fact-based opinions and one statement wishing my opponents well (which is mandated for Christians).

If a ban is going to be imposed consistently for the above type of posting, nobody will be able to post anything on the Boards.ie. without risking a ban.

People are allowed to courteously and reasonably express their opinions, without incurring a ban, like has happened to me.

... please lift this objectively unfounded ban on me.

J C

Hi Guys,

Now over two days banned for no valid reason.

Why are you guys ignoring me and not lifting this erroneous ban on me?

Please tell me where I broke any rules in what I said in the post below for which I was banned for two weeks :-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... so it turns out that Creation and the Flood is the 'watertight' origins theory ... where all of the questions and objections have been substantively answered ...
Direct Creation and Noah's Flood are indeed two of the most scientifically valid 'origins' Hypotheses. This is a fact-based opinion that breaks no forum rules that I know of.
... where all of the questions and objections have been substantively answered ...
This is true on both the thread and in the real world. It is again, a statement of fact-based opinion that breaks no forum rules.
... and M2M Evolution is still stuck at the Natural Selection of pre-existing diversity ... with no substantial theory on how the diversity was created, in the first place.
This is my honestly held fact-based opinion, backed up by my knowledge of the deficiencies of the current Evolution Hypotheses that Microbial unicells evolved into Man and the lack of any evidence being provided for this on the Thread. It breaks no forum rules that I know of.
Love and best wishes to you all.
I love my opponents and I wish them well ... and I wouldn't be a Christian worthy of the name, if I didn't. It is appropriate behaviour for a Christian on a Christianity forum - and breaks no rules that I know of.

Scofflaw

Hi JC,

we'll look into this - apologies for the delay.

moderately,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hi JC,

we'll look into this - apologies for the delay.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw.

J C

Scofflaw

Hi JC,

having looked at the thread and posts in question, and having queried the mod with respect to the ban, my view is that a ban is deserved, but that two weeks is a little excessive.

A quick recap of the timeline - Benny_Cake's warning on the 17th:

Also, some posts here recently have come close to crossing the line into personal abuse. This is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to goad other posters or soapbox. The charter is here in case anyone needs to familiarise themselves with it.

We then have some further exchanges, and the last post by anyone other than you is on the 19th, to which you respond more or less immediately.

There's then a hiatus, with no posts, and then you post:

... so it turns out that Creation and the Flood is the 'watertight' origins theory ... where all of the questions and objections have been substantively answered ...
... and M2M Evolution is still stuck at the Natural Selection of pre-existing diversity ... with no substantial theory on how the diversity was created, in the first place.

Love and best wishes to you all.

And you get a ban, not because you are making statements you believe to be true (I do appreciate you believe them to be true, and their objective truth is not important to this discussion), but because you have basically come along and done a little victory dance as if the posting hiatus showed the truth of your position. It's impossible to see that as anything other than an attempt to goad other posters into replying - it's an "in your face!" designed to annoy. Again, this is as per the mod's comment:

JC banned for two weeks. When I previously referred to goading, this is exactly the type of thing I was referring to. Although there is probably little to be said on this thread that hasn't been said before, lets try to have a semblance of discussion rather than wisecracks and inane remarks.

I should point out that while I know from my own experience that you're a mainstay of the Creationism thread, that thread is not your personal soapbox or pulpit, and you are expected to behave in it as you would be expected to behave elsewhere on boards. Your attitude in your last post in particular suggests that you have forgotten this, and see the thread as your personal arena of combat with error. The ban, hopefully, will help remind you that this is not the case.

In summary, what I am suggesting here is that your 2-week ban be reduced to a 1-week ban dating from the same start (so your 'time served' counts). If this is not an acceptable outcome, you can ask for an Admin to review the case.

moderately,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hi JC,

having looked at the thread and posts in question, and having queried the mod with respect to the ban, my view is that a ban is deserved, but that two weeks is a little excessive.

A quick recap of the timeline - Benny_Cake's warning on the 17th:

We then have some further exchanges, and the last post by anyone other than you is on the 19th, to which you respond more or less immediately.

There's then a hiatus, with no posts, and then you post:

And you get a ban, not because you are making statements you believe to be true (I do appreciate you believe them to be true, and their objective truth is not important to this discussion), but because you have basically come along and done a little victory dance as if the posting hiatus showed the truth of your position. It's impossible to see that as anything other than an attempt to goad other posters into replying - it's an "in your face!" designed to annoy. Again, this is as per the mod's comment:

Hi Scofflaw,
I have never heard of a 'posting Hiatus', but either way, it isn't of significance to the charge of trolling against me.
Doctoremma posted 19-04-2013, 23:37, I posted at 20-04-2013, 00:33 (56 minutes later) before going to bed and my next (and banned) post was 35 hours later 21-04-2013, 11:29.
Many other threads go for several days without a post - does this mean that the next misfortunate poster should be labelled a 'posting hiatus abuser' or some such 'strawman' and arbitrarily banned? ... or should I have rushed home, stopwatch in hand, to ensure that less than 24 hours had passed between posts, to avoid a 'posting hiatus' - whatever that means?

Practically every post is an 'invitation' to others to reply ... which is generally how discussions are supposed to proceed.
My (banned) post was a neat summary of where I thought the thread had reached. There is no rule that I have ever heard of in civil debating or on the Boards, that bans summarising your own and your opponents position - which is what I did in the cited post.
If a ban is going to be imposed consistently for the above type of posting, nobody will be able to post anything on the Boards.ie. without risking a ban.

The 'timeline' you cite also has a significant lacuna in it ...

I drew Benny's attention to the following post, which was posted after he had asked for 'goading' to cease (one of the supposed 'reasons' that I'm banned):

wrote:

Originally Posted by The Concrete Doctor

I love watching the documentaries on how life on earth began. David Attenborough is one of my favourites.

I suspect that your (referring to me) list of documentary favourites includes the Flintstones.

The above post has been removed ... with no censure published, that I can see, against the poster..
Contrast the above personal insult to me, with my posting ... which actually wished my opponents well and was focussed on two ideas ... and my two week ban (reduced to one week now).

I don't believe that either post deserved any censure quite frankly, but if a censure is to be imposed then surely a posting with a personal insult deserves a censure, before considering a censure against a post with a legitimate summary of the thread to date?
I'd classify Concrete Doctors post as a bit of good-natured slagging and I actually though it was quite witty ... at my expense ... but witty nonetheless.

Neither posts were 'trolling' IMO. Indeed, classifying this as 'trolling' trivialises a very serious and nasty form of behaviour ... that I have been subjected to on this thread ... without any response from Mods.
I have been called a 'moron', a liar, told that my scientific qualifications should be rescinded, that I shouldn't be allowed to work in science ... and this real 'trolling fest' against me regularly goes on without any censure from the Mods ... other than the occasional warning to me to not soapbox or some other ridiculous suggestion, given the prejudicial personal insults, that I am being subjected to.

Here is a typical example of what I have to put up with on the thread (and this was thanked by 5 other posters) ... and no censure or even a warning was applied.
The 'you' being referred to was me ...

doctoremma wrote:

No you don't. You don't answer anything. You post, that's true. But your posts are, at best, confused and, at worst, lies. It's like watching a dog chase its tail. It's pointless, both for the dog and for those watching.

And the dog doesn't even realise how stupid he looks; sure, he thinks it's great craic

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84136157&postcount=3520
Note that none of my ideas were addressed in this post ... it was me personally that was the object of the Post.
I know that such statements about me are untrue ... and I'm well able to defend myself and 'turn the tables' on such carry-on, but the fact that such prejudicial statements are tolerated about me ... and then I get banned for no objective reason, says that there are issues that need to be addressed on this forum.

People should be able to come on the Boards and reasonably express their ideas and criticise the ideas of others freely and fairly, without having to endure the continuous personal insults that sometimes occurs.
... and they should also be allowed to courteously and reasonably express their opinions without incurring a ban, like has happened to me.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I should point out that while I know from my own experience that you're a mainstay of the Creationism thread, that thread is not your personal soapbox or pulpit, and you are expected to behave in it as you would be expected to behave elsewhere on boards. Your attitude in your last post in particular suggests that you have forgotten this, and see the thread as your personal arena of combat with error. The ban, hopefully, will help remind you that this is not the case.

With over one hundred opposing posters, including yourself, on the mega-thread to date, there is not the slightest chance that I would or could soapbox or treat the thread as my personal 'anything'.
I never soapbox, which is defined in the Charter as the "constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it". Whist I am a Creationist and I hold this particular viewpoint (just like practically all of the other posters hold to an Evolutionist viewpoint) this hasn't meant that I have refused to entertain discussion on my viewpoint ... I have welcomed questioning of Creationism and I have contributed my opinions on Evolution as well - including answering follow-on questions to the best of my ability ... and two megathreads testify to this.
If I was soapboxing and repeating a mantra about my viewpoint, without ever answering any question on it ... everybody would simply stop posting and the thread would die from a lack of interest. Clearly this hasn't been the case.

I have no wish to replay the mega-thread here ... but I have substantively and honestly addressed all questions put to me on the mega-thread ... and if anybody was soapboxing, it was some of my opponents repeating mantras about Creationists being everything from crooks to morons - and stonewalling my questions about the evidence for Materialistic Evolution.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In summary, what I am suggesting here is that your 2-week ban be reduced to a 1-week ban dating from the same start (so your 'time served' counts). If this is not an acceptable outcome, you can ask for an Admin to review the case.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I didn't engage in 'trolling' which was the cited reason for my ban ... and I take deep personal offense at this unfounded and prejudicial charge.
Trolling is engaging in unfounded personal insults and posting off-topic comments and it needs to be censured ... and not trivialised by calling the on-topic reasonable expression and criticism of ideas 'trolling' - when that's what a discussion board is supposed to be about.

I therefore wish have an admin review the case ... my post broke no rules and is within both the letter and the spirit of civil debate.

I want the accusation of 'trolling' withdrawn - and this clearly unfounded ban lifted, please.

Thanks,

J C

Dades

I'll look at this, hopefully tomorrow.

J C

Dades wrote: »

I'll look at this, hopefully tomorrow.

Thanks Dades.

J C

Dades

There isn't much to be said further to what Scofflaw has already done. I'm in agreement with his reasoning, in particular this part:

Scofflaw wrote: »

I should point out that while I know from my own experience that you're a mainstay of the Creationism thread, that thread is not your personal soapbox or pulpit, and you are expected to behave in it as you would be expected to behave elsewhere on boards. Your attitude in your last post in particular suggests that you have forgotten this, and see the thread as your personal arena of combat with error. The ban, hopefully, will help remind you that this is not the case.

The various creationism threads over the years have provided mirth and frustration in equal part, but the reality is they're also a pain for the moderators too. (I would have closed the one in A&A long ago only Robindch agreed to monitor it). The trolling and goading that goes on in there is something that would never be allowed in most threads.

The post you received your ban for is a example of this. But make no mistake, your posting history comes into play. You have a record, J C, of moderator intervention which loses you credit every time.

So while the ban can be lifted after a week has passed, it remains now as warning that the creationism thread is not your personal fiefdom and that while some people (naively, in my opinion) continue to engage you, you cannot dance around them without stepping over the line. Bigger bans will follow if posting habits are not changed.