Banned from Athletics forum

CoachDudie

So I've been banned from the athletics forum. The touchy subject of drugs in the sport has got me banned. The rules say you can't speculate on who's on drugs and I haven't so obviously the ban is very unfair.
Asking serious questions about the sport has got me banned, nothing else.

Beasty

Have you discussed your ban with the mod who banned you via PM? That's the first step required before starting a dispute thread here

CoachDudie

Yes I have.

Beasty

OK, I will need to speak to the Mod to get the background then

I will get back to you when I've discussed it with them

CoachDudie

Right and get the comment I was banned for. Very harsh.

Beasty

OK, I've bene in contact with the mod and have also been having a look at your history in the forum.

This is your 4th ban in the forum and you have also received a yellow. That is 5 mod actions in the space of 130 posts or one every 26 posts. But that's not the whole story as looking back through your record the mods have also had to delete a lot of you posts. There are two common themes amongst the posts that have been actioned (either through deletion or cards/bans), and that is they relate to trolling or doping speculation concerning named athletes.

To be clear you should never name athletes you simply suspect of doping on Boards. This was covered recently in a Feedback thread. The rules applied in the Athletics/Running forum are very similar to those referred to in the Cycling forum, and the underlying reason for prohibiting such speculation is clearly set out in teh Feedback thread

So back to your history

6/8/12 - yellow card "You were warned previously about insinuations on the thread. Next time it will be a ban"
7/8/12 - 1 week ban for ignoring a mod warning made only a few minutes earlier and continuing to troll a thread
17/8/12 (ie within 2 days of that ban being lifted) - 1 week ban for more trolling with a warning given that your next ban would be permanent
30/10/12 - the mods show mercy and only actually ban you for 2 weeks for your next bout of trolling (which awas your very next post in the forum following the previous ban)
You did not post again in the forum until 14 July, when a spate of posts you made were deleted because of doping speculation, culminating in a post on 19 July which got you permanently banned.

A ban for that post in isolation may look harsh, but when I look at your "record" over the past 12 months you have picked up 4 bans in the space of 29 posts in the forum, and the mods had to go to the trouble of deleting 9 of those posts

In summary you are a time sink. You ignore any warnings given and continue to cause the local mods hassle pretty much whenever you post. In the circumstances a permanent ban from the forum is entirely reasonable and I am upholding it

You may ask the Admins to review this decision if you wish

CoachDudie

Hang on, you have put up all the dates from where I received warnings and bans but not put up the posts. If you look at them then all the bans were harsh. I don't beleive you should be banned because a mod disagrees with you. That's what's happening here.

Beasty

CoachDudie wrote: »

Hang on, you have put up all the dates from where I received warnings and bans but not put up the posts. If you look at them then all the bans were harsh. I don't beleive you should be banned because a mod disagrees with you. That's what's happening here.

You are being banned for an acculmulation of breaches of forum and site rules. You have been guilty of trolling and you have put up a number of posts that clearly contravene the "no doping speculation" rule. This is nothing to do with disagreeing with a mod (other than you seem to want to place your own interpretation on what are very clear rules). You have also not contested any of the prior bans (or card)

I am not going to change my decision. You are a clear drain on mod resources and they should not be required to put up with posters like you trying to place your own interpretation on the rules and ignoring their warnings and instructions

Do you want an Admin to review this?

CoachDudie

Yeah, throw it at the admin, I didn't name athletes so I clearly didn't break any rules.

Beasty

Clearly I am not going to name the names here, but if any Admin wants details of the posts that the mods had to delete because this poster did actually name names I will be happy to PM links

Mr E

Well I found two quite quickly...

CoachDudie on July 14th wrote:

Well, lets hope **redacted** is caught next. Anyone with common sense can see what's been happening in sprinting but there's those who continue to cover their eyes.

CoachieDude last July wrote:

Did you here the deep voice on **redacted** in the clip at the bottom? 100 and 200 double gold for her I'd say.

CoachDudie

In the first post where it says '**redacted**', I don't actually name anyone. It really looks like it does there but I didn't.
In the second one where have I alleged drug abuse?
Plus when I say "Anyone with common sense can see what's been happening in sprinting but there's those who continue to cover their eyes." That has been proven correct.

Mr E

So you think by using a nickname of some sort, it makes it OK? By hoping they'd get caught, you implied that they were taking drugs.

For the 2nd one, you're saying that the lady in question had a deep voice, and that she would win 2 gold medals for it. You're hardly implying that she had a bloody cold.....

In addition to a change in the exterior appearance of the women, steroids tend to change a woman's voice, making it deeper and more masculine.

http://www.personalpowertraining.net/Articles/the_damaging_effects_of_steroids_on_women.htm

CoachDudie

I didn't use a nickname of sort. I could be talking about anyone. I didn't break the rules.

When training, people develope testosterone naturally, youre just thinking I'm guilty and looking at my posts from that perspective.

CoachDudie

When's the admin going to overturn this unfair banning?

Tom Dunne

CoachDudie wrote: »

When's the admin going to overturn this unfair banning?

Not going to happen, I'm afraid.

For the reasons outlined above, ban upheld.