Over-zealous Conspiract Theory forum ban

alastair

I've been banned for a fortnight from the CT forum for the following:

Moderator Note

Repeated antagonism and needless sarcasm.

Your post:

Originally Posted by alastair

Originally Posted by seanie_c

Nothing else to say then?

Do what you do best. Cry, like a baby.

Reported post.

I'd start thinking up a new username - this one clearly isn't going to last.

It's in the fluoridation thread. I managed to garner a ban while seanie was escaping any penalty for his crybaby missives etc, until I queried the ban. Smacks of a dose of partiality tbh.

Could someone review and post their thoughts?

cheers,
alastair

Ickle Magoo

Hi alastair,

I'll take a look at this for you.

Bear with me.

alastair

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Hi alastair,

I'll take a look at this for you.

Bear with me.

No worries - there's no rush.

cheers,
alastair

Ickle Magoo

Hi again alastair, thanks for your patience.

Righty-ho, first and foremost the function of this forum is only to resolve disputed moderator action received by a specific poster which they have deemed unwarranted. If you have any questions regarding moderator impartiality then the appropriate platform for that is HELPDESK. Before doing so it might be helpful for you to note that moderators frequently take time to think about or discuss with their co-mods what the best course of action is and thus it is not uncommon for moderator action in the same thread, regarding different posters, to be applied at different times.

On to your ban. The moderator note on the thread in question states you were being "needlessly antagonistic and sarcastic to other users". I agree. There are plenty of ways to make a point without resorting to posting in a manner guaranteed to get other posters backs up such as snide one-liners, back-seat moderating and liberal use of "rolley eyes". While a single post may not merit a two week ban, the same post forming part of a pattern from a poster who has failed to take previous moderator actions on board certainly can. In your case you have accumulated a whopping 23 moderator actions in the Conspiracy Theory forum including no less than six previous forum bans - and an infraction for similar behaviour in the same thread only 24hrs earlier.

Far from suffering over-zealous moderation if I was you I would consider myself quite lucky to be posting in that forum at all and that the moderator did not make your ban much longer or even permanent on this occasion. Before posting in the forum again, please note I would have found such an action to have been absolutely justified.

Ban upheld. You may appeal to an admin if you wish.

alastair

Conspiracy Theory threads are what 'rolley eyes' icons are made for! :rolleyes:

I'd have to wonder where you see antagonism in particular, and the 'needless' sarcasm - given the claims made in the thread. In all honesty - if you can't disconnect the posts from the context - then it's no wonder CT acts as a refuge for those unprepared to stand over ludicrous claims. Sometimes sarcasm is entirely justified - even 'needed'.


tbh - there's no point in my pursuing the issue of moderator impartiality through the HELPDESK. I suspect the mods close ranks in such cases; an impression not exactly undermined by made your clear expression of getting the defence in ahead of the review. Lets just say that the 'best course of action' with regard to banning me was evident to the mod pretty much immediately, whereas as another poster - engaged in actual abuse, earlier in the thread, got off scott free until I raised a stink (or 'mature reflection' kicked in - take your pick).

Thanks for the dispute review though. Much appreciated.

Ickle Magoo

Hey there,

While you may not see the antagonism, feel the CT forum is what the 'rolley eyes' icons were made for and that sarcasm is justified/necessitated due to ludicrous claims - the local moderators disagree. That is understandable because the forum charter states "you're welcome here as long as you treat everyone else with respect.." and "If you're here to mock or antagonize others for what they believe, you're definitely in the wrong place." If a poster is antagonising you, getting personal, failing to discuss the topic as laid out in the forum charter or in some way breaching the forum or site rules then the appropriate action is to report the post and let the moderators deal with it.

Regarding the closed ranks theory in Helpdesk, it is simply not the case and you are absolutely entitled to use all available avenues to air your concerns. I was sharing that in my experience as a moderator that there are a whole raft of reasons why two posters do not get actioned simultaneously that does not include bias or partiality.

If you don't agree with my review the events pertaining to your ban, you can ask that an admin review further.

All the very best.

alastair

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Hey there,

Regarding the closed ranks theory in Helpdesk, it is simply not the case and you are absolutely entitled to use all available avenues to air your concerns. I was sharing that in my experience as a moderator that there are a whole raft of reasons why two posters do not get actioned simultaneously that does not include bias or partiality.

If you don't agree with my review the events pertaining to your ban, you can ask that an admin review further.

All the very best.

Cheers for that.

With regard to the possible reasons why two posters might not get actioned simultaneously (and not disputing your angle on things) - if it walks and quacks like a duck, chances are it's probably a duck. Given that I've been, once again, subjected to a thread warning, despite other, contextual posts, in greater contravention of forum rules, going un-moderated. The excuse that they were un-reported (when they were quoted in the supposedly offending posts), and that there's been no time to review them (a week or so on now), simply don't pass the smell test.

Ickle Magoo

Hey alastair,

Each thread in this forum has a specific function and discussions regarding other posters, complaints relating to general moderation or disputing secondary actions are out-with that scope.

Would you like to appeal the ban you received 22/09/13 to an admin?