A grossly unfair ban from Rugby

First Up

I protest and appeal this outrageous ban in the strongest terms possible. Over the past days I have made numerous efforts to debate a poster who persists in mis-representing me (and others) and who has failed to respond to any of numerous on-topic points made.

All that happened today was me inviting him to engage in a proper discussion and asking that he (a) read posts properly and (b) stop mis-representing me. A moderator (who definitely has a dog in the fight and who I know doesn't like my opinions) uses this as an excuse for a ban, on the grounds that I am not discussing the topic!

This is not the first run-in I have had with this moderator, nor is it the first abuse of position I have seen from him. It does nothing for the credibility or value of Boards and you need to do something about it.

First Up

Let me add suspected Moderator collusion to my complaint. The ban today was made possible because I received an infraction a few days back for a quite innocuous post. I did nothing about it at the time because it was just plain silly. However I should have smelled a rat; the earlier infraction was from a different moderator who was otherwise conspicuously absent from the thread. I now suspect that the first infraction was to set me up.

For the record, the post below is what got me banned today:

Well I have made several attempts to answer your blanket criticisms of Gatland and some of the players he selected. I have brought up aspects of tactics and selection policy that you either either hadn't thought of or chose to ignore.

Your response has been to characterise everything as unquestioning praise of Gatland which it obviously is not.

If you would like to exchange views on any technical or tactical aspects of the tour I will be happy to do so. The only conditions I would ask are that you (a) read other people's posts properly and (b) stop mis-representing what they say.

And I would hope the moderators would support this.

Beasty

Please read the notices at the top of this page and the dispute Resolution Forum.

You should firstly note that posting abusive comments about mods can expect to result in the appeal being closed with no further appeal being entertained. You may wish to reconsider how your appeal is presented in light of this

However before you do that, you should also note that you must attempt to resolve the dispute directly with the mod involved via PM before starting a thread here. Have you done that?

If you are unable to resolve the dispute with the mod a Sports CMod will have a look at your appeal

First Up

Beasty wrote: »

Please read the notices at the top of this page and the dispute Resolution Forum.

You should firstly note that posting abusive comments about mods can expect to result in the appeal being closed with no further appeal being entertained. You may wish to reconsider how your appeal is presented in light of this

However before you do that, you should also note that you must attempt to resolve the dispute directly with the mod involved via PM before starting a thread here. Have you done that?

If you are unable to resolve the dispute with the mod a Sports CMod will have a look at your appeal

Thanks

I did not see the point of asking someone to police their own behaviour but if that is your procedure, I will follow it.

I do not consider my protest or appeal to constitute abuse.

First Up

No resolution with the mod in question so here goes:

Background;
Irish rugby has made a bit of an eejit of itself over the last few months, due to the hysterical and vitriolic reaction to how some Irish players were treated during the Lions tour. It was parochialism at its worst and has made Irish rugby something of a global laughing stock - especially as the selection decisions were thoroughly vindicated by results. The Lions forum on Boards exemplified this, with some pretty ridiculous stuff.

You would have thought that the naysayers would have been humiliated enough at the time but some of them re-ignited it all in the last week, with renewed (and equally ridiculous) attacks on the Lions management. Unable to quibble with the result, they turned their criticism towards "style". If the earlier diatribes showed them as parochial begrudgers, the more recent stuff showed they didn't know much about winning rugby matches either.

Where was the moderator in all this you ask? In the thick of it; joining in the discussion and criticism - half-heartedly moderating those he agreed with and issuing warnings and reprimands to those he didn't.

So on we went merrily; generally good banter and (in my humble opinion) a gradual demolition of the naysayers arguments.

So with the arguments not going so well for the majority and having having had one moderator running the show for the duration, another moderator suddenly popped up the other day and out of the blue issues me with an infraction for the following:

"What exactly are you trying to prove? That you can dig a hole all the way back to Sydney before Christmas?" (Yes I know, really nasty - much worse than someone calling another poster a moron, without any response from the mod.)

This was accompanied by a threat of a six month ban. Anyone smell a rat?

On we went, with a certain poster describing all my contributions as an attempt to stifle criticism of the Lions management - while not acknowledging any of the points I had offered in their defence/mitigation. (The main mod had been posting along similar lines.)

During this exchange the main mod suddenly intrudes, telling us to discuss only the topic. I was working on a reply to the other poster at the time which was:

Well I have made several attempts to answer your blanket criticisms of Gatland and some of the players he selected. I have brought up aspects of tactics and selection policy that you either either hadn't thought of or chose to ignore.

Your response has been to characterise everything as unquestioning praise of Gatland which it obviously is not.

If you would like to exchange views on any technical or tactical aspects of the tour I will be happy to do so. The only conditions I would ask are that you (a) read other people's posts properly and (b) stop mis-representing what they say.

And I would hope the moderators would support this.

So I sent it. Next thing I know, I'm banned, on the grounds of ignoring a mod's warning to discuss only the topic! What did he think I was discussing?

Now let me acknowledge that have history with both moderators. The principle one likes to post in the threads he moderates and doesn't like his opinions challenged. To my eyes, he gets the two roles confused - supporting or at least going easy on those of his viewpoint but leaning hard on others. Earlier in the thread he banned me for making him look silly (I was being impolite.)

The other mod is (to my eyes) a bit trigger-happy - issuing warnings and bans with frequency and enthusiasm. He had threatened me previously but backed of when challenged, so I suppose he was waiting for his next chance.

Now I can't prove that this was a set up - a contrived first yellow in order to make the second one a red. However if it looks like a duck and walks like a..... In the context of the overall thread, I think any fair-minded person would agree that not only was neither of my infractions justified, the manner in which they were contrived and applied raises justifiable suspicions of collusion and conspiracy and I would like this investigated.

I don't know what code of conduct the mods operate to but I would have hoped the words impartiality, fairness and common sense are in there somewhere. Issuing unjustified infractions and contriving bans for posters whose opinions you don't like (or the way they express them) makes it seem that if such values do exist, they are ignored at the whim of those with more power than they are able to handle.

You CAN do better.

Beasty

OK, we've been here before

If you wish to complain about mod behaviour, discuss it directly with a CMod, or start a thread in Help Desk

This thread will deal with your 6 month ban from Rugby, and not claims of "collusion" or "a set-up" etc. I will deal with the posts and behaviour that led up to your ban.

Firstly I need to mention you have a record in the forum that needs to be considered when mods take any further action. In your case you had picked up 3 bans ranging from a week to a month together with a couple of cards before this "round" of problems

So you then received a red card on 26 August for this post when you responded to another poster as follows

First Up wrote: »

What exactly are you trying to prove? That you can dig a hole all the way back to Sydney before Christmas?

Basically you had been having a tit for tat with the other poster and the mods called a halt - in your infraction PM the mod stated

Given your ban history in this forum, this is a warning that any further infractions or bans will lead to a 6 month ban

You were basically returning to the subject that had resulted in a previous ban and the mod called you out on it. Indeed a few posts later you were given the benefit of the doubt when a second mod had to instruct you to Drop the snipes, it's getting tiresome

TBH given your continual bickering I would have had no problem if the mod had carded you there and then, and imposed the previously threatened 6 month ban, but as I indicated above you were given the benefit of the doubt.

There was a lot of further discussion largely involving you and one other poster and a mod issued a further in-thread warning

Okay folks, this getting tiresome. People are telling each other what they can and cannot discuss - this is a no no, the only people who should be doing this is the mods. If you don't like what's being discussed then ignore it. At this point posters are just sniping at each other because of the content of posts. People can discuss the merits of the tour if they want, and if you disagree with them then fine, give your opinion and your logic in a civilized manner. Accusing posters of whinging, calling other posters childish or telling them to get over themselves is not acceptable.

and immediately thereafter (after a couple of intervening posts that were deleted) another warning

I've already issued one warning. Anymore posts not relating to rugby here will receive infractions.

So basically you had been warned that your next infraction would result in a 6 month ban and it had been made absolutely clear that the thread (which you had helped derail) had to get back on topic and posters should stop commenting on

Then, in the very next post (which was made 40 mins or so after the mod warning so you cannot claim you had not seen it) you decided to continue the tit for tat with the other poster

If you would like to exchange views on any technical or tactical aspects of the tour I will be happy to do so. The only conditions I would ask are that you (a) read other people's posts properly and (b) stop mis-representing what they say.

And I would hope the moderators would support this.

A clear example of back-seat modding and ignoring the specific mod warning not to tell posters what they could and could not say. If you had a problem with someone else's post you should have reported it and left the mods to deal with it

There is a pattern of ignoring mod warnings and backseat modding in your card and ban record and plenty of examples that were dealt with by in-thread warnings

So in conclusion my decision is I feel the threat of a 6 month ban was entirely reasonable given your ban record and that by continuing to ignore mod warnings they were left with no choice but to implement it

First Up

A few things need to be said in response to that:

1. Why won't you deal with the bias and collusion issues raised? They are obviously central to my case. Diverting them off to a separate forum is simply dodging them. I presented a holistic account and I should be entitled to it being considered in the same manner.

2 Yes I have had skirmishes with mods in the past. I have also contributed to some of the more lively and interesting discussions around, frequently despite the efforts of the mods to control the discussions. If you want to preside over forums that exchange recipes and knitting patterns - good luck, but I don't think you will be building your audience.

3. Terms like "bickering" and "sniping" are those of you and the mods. Others (i.e. those involved) might not agree. For example, the "sniping" allegation related to an exchange with the poster who had started the thread and by my reckoning posted on it at least twenty times. Yet, in his efforts to denigrate the Lions tour, told us he had "lost interest" in it. My slightly sarcastic post showed that statement for what it was. Your moderator's intervention was not about my "sniping" - it was his displeasure at me scoring a point he didn't like.

4. I totally reject your allegation that I "derailed" the thread. I may have disrupted a cozy consensus of whingers, of which your moderator was a prominent member but I also (for a while) turned it into a discussion. I think it is abundantly clear that my current ban - and most of the previous sanctions - arose from me adopting minority positions and being able to defend them much too well for the taste of those who didn't like them.

Now, back to your knitting and recipes. If you want to look seriously at the important issues I've raised, you know where to find me. But I won't be waiting up.

Beasty

First Up wrote: »

Now, back to your knitting and recipes. If you want to look seriously at the important issues I've raised, you know where to find me. But I won't be waiting up.

About sums up the contempt you show to the mods and indeed this dispute process

Do you wish an Admin to review this?

First Up

Beasty wrote: »

About sums up the contempt you show to the mods and indeed this dispute process

Do you wish an Admin to review this?

Yes please.

First Up

Beasty wrote: »

About sums up the contempt you show to the mods and indeed this dispute process

Do you wish an Admin to review this?

Allow me to amend that; I do not have contempt for the moderation or dispute process - just for their abuse.

oscarBravo

I've reviewed this dispute, and I agree with Beasty's analysis.

An added word of advice: if you're trying to make the case that you haven't been banned because of your own behaviour, that case would be made much more convincingly by not exhibiting the same sort of behaviour in the course of the dispute resolution process.

Ban is upheld.